Michael E. Lauver and Tasha T. Lauver

1. We agree with Respondent, Citadel Federal Credit Union (“Citadel”), that the value of the Vehicle is the
replacement value, which is defined as “the price a willing buyer in the debtor’s trade, business or situation
would pay to obtain like property from a willing seller,” Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953,
960 (1997); see also In re King, No. 01-37214DWS, 2003 WL 22110779 *4 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2003).
We also agree with our colleague, Chief Judge Diane W. Sigmund, who stated that:
[t]o determine replacement value, I must ask what price a buyer in Debtor’s
position would pay. (footnote deleted). A buyer in the Debtor’s position
would not be able to secure a wholesale price for the vehicle. (citation
omitted). Rather that is generally the price a dealer would pay a consumer
for a trade in on her vehicle which is not the situation here. Rather she
would pay either retail value or some lesser price if she bought it from a
private party.... Either option would be available to a party in Debtor’s
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
In re:
MICHAEL E. LAUVER aka 	: 	Case No. 05-20015T
MICHAEL EUGENE LAUVER
TASHA T. LAUVER aka 	:
TASHA TROY LAUVER aka
TASHA BRYSON, 	:
Debtor(s)
:
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23 rd day of June, 2005, it is ORDERED that Debtors’ Motion for
Redemption of a 2000 Ford Ranger, Vehicle Identification Number 1FTZR15XXYTA454658 (“the
Vehicle”), is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as follows:
(1) Debtors’ Motion is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks permission from this
Court to authorize the redemption of the Vehicle by Debtors; and
(2) Debtors’ Motion is DENIED to the extent that it seeks an Order valuing the
Vehicle at $8250.00 as the court finds that the fair market value of the Vehicle is $10,500.00.1
Case 05-20015-tmt Doc 15 Filed 06/23/05 Entered 06/23/05 10:36:17 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 2

position, and therefore I conclude that the appropriate value is something
slightly less than retail to account for the availability of the private sale
option.
King, 2003 WL 22110779 at *5.
We next turn to the evidence before us and note that the parties have provided us with two
assessments of the fair market retail value of the Vehicle, as follows. Exhibit R-1, which is titled “Vehicle
Summary with NADA Values” was faxed to counsel for Citadel by counsel for Debtor. Exhibit R-1 lists the
retail value of the Vehicle at $11,325.00. 	Exhibit R-2 , which is titled “NADA Vehicle Pricing &
Information” lists the retail value of the Vehicle at $11,850. The differences in the two retail values is
explained by the fact that Exhibit R-1 values the Vehicle with fewer options than the valuation shown on
Exhibit R-2. As the options listed on Exhibit R-2 most accurately reflect the options which are actually
contained on the Vehicle, and as we find the testimony proffered by Citadel’s witness to be extremely
credible, we accept the retail value listed on Exhibit R-2 as the most accurate assessment of the retail value
of the Vehicle. However, we also note that Debtor, Tasha Lauver, testified that the Vehicle is in good
condition, with no dents, but with some scratches in the bed of the truck and with some holes in the driver’s
seat. Taking into account these minor deficiencies as well as the fact that the Vehicle’s odometer registers
approximately 55,000 miles, and after making an adjustment for the possibility that Debtors could purchase
a vehicle from a private party, we find as a fact that the fair market value of the Vehicle is $10,500.00.
2
Reading, PA
THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 05-20015-tmt Doc 15 Filed 06/23/05 Entered 06/23/05 10:36:17 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 2