- 65 -
Furthermore, the record contains no materials that undermine
the value placed by Mr. Thomson on the park, prior to
consideration of environmental issues, or offer an alternative
figure. Mr. Cronkite did not inspect the mobile home park or
perform a real estate appraisal, and his professional
qualifications do not reveal any expertise in the real estate
area. Mr. Thomson, on the other hand, is a licensed real estate
appraiser and broker in the State of California. He testified to
having appraised mobile home parks. We thus are confident that
he would have been in a position to make an informed judgment
about a general value range in comparison to other Southern
California mobile home park sales. In addition, the fact that
the park was refinanced in 1997, after the year in issue, for
nearly $16 million also lends a degree of credence to Mr.
Thomson’s numbers.
Another point raised by the estate concerns references in
Mr. Thomson’s report to the coverage provided by the primary
collateral, the $1 million note, as “more than 2 to 1”. Although
the actual coverage is only “1 to 1”, inasmuch as the Marsh note
was secured by a 45-percent interest in the $1 million note, we
again do not believe that this fact, in and of itself,
eviscerates the basic premise of good coverage. We are equally
unconvinced that any of the various other contentions made by the
estate on brief render unreasonable the conclusion that the Marsh
Page: Previous 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011