David Taylor v. Usaa Federal Savings Bank ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                 FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    In re: DAVID DOUGLAS TAYLOR;       
    LINDA SUE TAYLOR,
    Debtors,           No. 08-60033
    BAP No.
    USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK,                WW-07-1313-
    Appellant,             MkMoD
    v.                            OPINION
    DON THACKER, Trustee,
    Appellee.
    
    Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    Montali, Markell, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    August 3, 2009—Seattle, Washington
    Filed February 26, 2010
    Before: Harry Pregerson, John T. Noonan and Carlos T. Bea,
    Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge Bea
    3095
    3098                           IN RE TAYLOR
    COUNSEL
    Lawrence Gary Reinhold, Weinstein & Riley, P.S., Akron,
    Ohio, for the defendant-appellant.
    Thomas W. Stilley, Sussman Shank LLP, Portland, Oregon,
    for the plaintiff-appellee.
    OPINION
    BEA, Circuit Judge:
    In 2005, David and Linda Taylor bought a Toyota Camry
    right before declaring bankruptcy. Their lender, USAA Fed-
    eral Savings Bank (“USAA”), procured from the Taylors a
    security interest in the car as collateral for the loan. USAA
    perfected its security interest 21 days after the Taylors pur-
    chased their car; USAA’s perfection was timely under Idaho
    law, but one day late under federal bankruptcy provisions.1
    1
    When a debtor declares bankruptcy before paying off his debt, the
    creditor must “perfect” a security interest to enforce his interest and to pre-
    IN RE TAYLOR                               3099
    The Taylors’ conveyance of a security interest to USAA was
    then avoidable by the Taylors’ bankruptcy trustee, as a prefer-
    ential transfer.2 The trustee moved the bankruptcy court to
    avoid the transfer and the court granted the motion.
    We address a recurring question in many bankruptcies:
    What should be the remedy when a court holds that a security
    interest is avoidable as a preferential transfer? When a bank-
    ruptcy court avoids a preferential transfer, it may award the
    bankrupt estate either the actual transferred property or the
    serve the priority of his claim. Perfection usually requires the creditor file
    documents with a State to prove when the creditor received the security
    interest. Under Idaho law, a creditor perfects a security interest in a vehi-
    cle by filing a “properly completed title application and all required sup-
    porting documents with the department [of transportation] or an agent of
    the department.” Idaho Code § 49-510(1). The application for certificate
    of title includes “a full description of the vehicle, including whether the
    vehicle is new or used, together with a statement of the applicant’s title
    and of any liens or encumbrances upon the vehicle, and the name and
    address of the person to whom the certificate of title shall be delivered,
    and any other information as the department may require.” Idaho Code
    § 49-504(1). Perfected security interests shall “take priority according to
    the order in which the same are noted upon the certificate of title or
    entered into the electronic records of the department.” Idaho Code § 49-
    510(3). Under the federal Bankruptcy Code, a security interest is perfected
    when the creditor has satisfied the requirements of perfection under state
    law. See 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(3)(B), Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. v.
    Fink, 
    522 U.S. 211
    , 214 (1998) (holding a security interest is perfected for
    federal bankruptcy purposes if the creditor satisfies the requirements for
    perfection under state law).
    Under Idaho law, a creditor must file the title application and all sup-
    porting documents within 30 days after the delivery of the vehicle. Idaho
    Code § 49-504. At the time the Taylors purchased their vehicle, the federal
    Bankruptcy Code required creditors to perfect their security interests
    within 20 days. 11 U.S.C. § 547(c) (discussed infra note 6).
    2
    Preferential transfers are usually transfers of a debtor’s interest in prop-
    erty to a creditor on the eve of the debtor’s bankruptcy. These transfers are
    preferential because the insolvent debtor chooses which creditor to repay
    instead of following the order of priority established by the relevant bank-
    ruptcy laws. See 11 U.S.C. § 547.
    3100                      IN RE TAYLOR
    value of the transferred property. 11 U.S.C. § 550(a). Here,
    the bankruptcy court declined to award the estate the trans-
    ferred property: the security interest. If it had done so, then
    the bankruptcy trustee could simply have canceled the secur-
    ity interest, thus converting the auto loan into an unsecured
    debt owed to USAA. Instead, the bankruptcy court opted to
    award the estate the “value” of the security interest. Hence,
    because the bankruptcy court left the original transaction
    untouched, USAA kept its valid, enforceable secured interest
    in the Camry. But, the bankruptcy court also awarded the
    Taylors’ bankruptcy estate something more. It was that
    decision—to award the estate the value of the security interest
    by means of a new forced loan—that led the bankruptcy court
    down the proverbial rabbit hole.
    Once the bankruptcy court decided to award the value of
    the security interest, it faced the question: What is the value
    of a security interest, once the security interest is separated
    from its underlying loan? The bankruptcy court determined
    that the value of the security interest was the full value of the
    initial loan. Therefore, the district court ordered USAA to
    loan the estate $18,020 plus interest; this amount was in addi-
    tion to the $18,020 USAA initially loaned the Taylors when
    they purchased the Camry. Upon payment of the additional
    $18,020, USAA became entitled to file a non-priority unse-
    cured claim for the additional amount of $18,020 plus inter-
    est, which was loaned under the bankruptcy court’s order. The
    bankruptcy court’s determination of the value of the security
    interest was clearly erroneous. We agree that the security
    interest may have had some value greater than zero; there is,
    however, no evidence in this record to support the district
    court’s finding that the value of the security interest equaled
    the amount of the original $18,020 loan at the time USAA
    perfected its security interest.
    Furthermore, because the value of USAA’s security interest
    is not readily ascertainable, the bankruptcy court erred when
    it awarded the estate an estimate of that value instead of the
    IN RE TAYLOR                              3101
    transferred property—the security interest. Therefore, we
    reverse the bankruptcy court’s decision and remand with
    instructions for the bankruptcy court to declare USAA’s
    security interest void. The ownership of the Camry will not be
    subject to the lien created by the security interest. USAA will
    retain an unsecured claim against the estate for $18,020, the
    value of the loan. For reasons discussed below, we also
    remand to the district court to determine whether USAA must
    return the payments it received from the Taylors, and if so, to
    whom.
    I.    Factual Background
    A.     The Purchase
    On August 30, 2005, David and Linda Taylor, a married
    couple, purchased and took possession of a 2006 Toyota
    Camry from Gresham Toyota, Inc. (“Gresham”), a dealership
    in Portland, Oregon. The Taylors purchased the car for
    $19,500.
    USAA loaned the Taylors $18,020; the Taylors in turn paid
    the $18,020 to Gresham. The amount of the loan was equal
    to the purchase price of the car less the agreed trade-in value
    of the Taylors’ 1992 Lincoln Town Car, which the Taylors
    sold to Gresham as part of the purchase of the Camry. In Sep-
    tember 2005, the Taylors began to make monthly payments
    on their loan to USAA.3
    The Taylors, as part of the loan agreement, granted USAA
    a “purchase money security interest” in the car.4 Under the
    3
    The record does not show the amount of the monthly payment. Follow-
    ing the Taylors’s petition in bankruptcy, they arranged to continue to pay
    the loan from their post-petition income that was not part of the estate;
    therefore, they did not default. It is not clear on the record before us if any
    payments came from the estate itself.
    4
    A purchase-money security interest is: “A security interest that is cre-
    ated when a buyer uses the lender’s money to make the purchase and
    3102                           IN RE TAYLOR
    Bankruptcy Code, a security interest is a lien created by an
    agreement (as opposed to by statute). 11 U.S.C. § 101(51).5 A
    “lien . . . means [a] charge against or interest in property to
    secure payment of a debt or performance of an obligation.” 11
    U.S.C. § 101(37).
    To satisfy pre-existing debts, a trustee can avoid transfers
    that take place within the 90 days before bankruptcy is filed.
    11 U.S.C. § 547(b). There is an exception to this rule, how-
    ever, for creditors who perfect a security interest within 20
    days after a transfer for new value. 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(3). A
    security interest is perfected when the creditor has satisfied
    the requirements of perfection under state law. Fidelity Finan-
    cial Services, Inc. v. Fink, 
    522 U.S. 211
    , 214 (1998). Thus,
    USAA had to satisfy all the requirements set out in Idaho
    Code Sections 28-9-310 through 28-9-316 within 20 days
    after the Taylors took possession of the Camry. Idaho Code
    29-9-308(a); 11 U.S.C. 547 (c). USAA, however, made the
    crucial mistake of being one day late in perfecting its security
    interest. Accordingly, USAA failed to exempt the transfer
    from being avoidable under the Bankruptcy Code.
    USAA failed to perfect the security interest within 20 days
    because it filed its initial application for title without a signed
    affidavit of inspection, as required under Idaho law. See Idaho
    Code Ann. § 49-510. On September 20, 2005, an inspection
    officer from the Idaho Transportation Department inspected
    immediately gives the lender security by using the purchased property as
    collateral (UCC § 9-103); a security interest that is either (1) taken or
    retained by the seller of the collateral to secure all or part of its price or
    (2) taken by a person who by making advances or incurring an obligation
    gives value to enable the debtor to acquire rights in or the use of collateral
    if that value is in fact so used. If a buyer’s purchase of a boat, for example,
    is financed by a bank that loans the amount of the purchase price, the
    bank’s security interest in the boat that secures the loan is a purchase-
    money security interest.” BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009).
    5
    All future references to “Section” or “§ “ are to the Bankruptcy Code,
    11 U.S.C. § 101, et seq., unless otherwise noted.
    IN RE TAYLOR                            3103
    the car and signed an affidavit of inspection. The same day,
    an Application for Certificate of Title and the affidavit of
    inspection were filed with the Idaho Transportation Depart-
    ment. USAA’s security interest was thus perfected under
    Idaho law only on September 20, 2005—21 days after the
    Taylors took possession of the car on August 30, 2005.
    Despite the fact that USAA’s security interest was perfected
    under state law, the bankruptcy trustee could still avoid the
    transfer of the security interest because USAA failed to meet
    the federal 20-day perfection requirement under § 547(c)(3).6
    B.    The Bankruptcy
    On September 28, 2005, the Taylors filed a voluntary peti-
    tion in bankruptcy under Chapter 7. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy
    filing transfers title to the debtors’ nonexempt assets to a
    court-appointed trustee, who endeavors to manage the assets
    in a manner that will satisfy the creditors’ claims. 11 U.S.C.
    §§ 701, 704. The bankruptcy court appointed Don Thacker as
    the Taylors’ bankruptcy trustee.
    On February 23, 2007, Thacker filed suit against USAA to
    avoid the transfer of the security interest under 11 U.S.C.
    § 547(b). Thacker moved for summary judgment, which the
    bankruptcy court granted.7
    6
    Before the bankruptcy court, USAA contended it perfected its security
    interest when it filed its application with the Idaho Transportation Depart-
    ment on September 15, 2005 because Idaho permitted it a grace period of
    an additional 20 days. See Idaho Code 49-510. The bankruptcy court held
    the state law grace period did not apply to federal bankruptcy proceedings
    regarding avoidance of a preferential transfer under § 547. See Fidelity
    Financial 
    Services, 522 U.S. at 221
    . The BAP affirmed. USAA’s briefs no
    longer claim its security interest was perfected on September 15, 2005;
    hence, USAA has waived that argument on appeal.
    7
    There does not seem to be any explanation for the seventeen month
    delay between the date when the Taylors filed for bankruptcy and the date
    when Thacker sued USAA. USAA has not raised any legal contention
    based on this fact.
    3104                         IN RE TAYLOR
    On August 10, 2007, the bankruptcy court held the transfer
    was avoidable. The bankruptcy court concluded that cancel-
    ling the security interest or transferring it to the trustee was
    an insufficient remedy. Rather, the court concluded it must
    award the estate the value of the security interest at the time
    of the August 30, 2005 purchase of the car—the date the Tay-
    lors transferred the security interest in the car to USAA. To
    that end, the bankruptcy court issued judgment against USAA
    for $ 18,020, plus interest—a new $18,020 additional to the
    $18,020 which USAA had already loaned the Taylors—and
    graciously allowed USAA to file an unsecured debtor’s claim
    for this second $18,020 loan plus interest, once USAA paid
    that new loan’s proceeds to the estate.8 The net result was that
    (1) the bankruptcy estate was allowed to keep the car and the
    original loan obligation of $18,020 used to purchase the car;
    (2) USAA was allowed to keep its valid lien, or security inter-
    est, in the car; (3) USAA was ordered to loan the bankruptcy
    estate another $18,020; and (4) USAA received an unsecured
    claim against the estate for the fresh loan of $18,020. At the
    end of the day, USAA was both a secured creditor (against
    all, including the bankruptcy estate) for one loan of $18,020
    (less the payments the Taylors had made) and an unsecured
    creditor for another, new debt of $18,020.
    During proceedings before the bankruptcy court, USAA
    contended that the correct remedy was simply to cancel the
    security interest, i.e., to return the transferred property to the
    estate. The bankruptcy court held that canceling the security
    interest would not return the estate to the same position it
    would have been in if the Taylors had not made the transfer
    to USAA. The value of the security interest had diminished
    8
    The court ordered USAA to pay interest on the $18,020 from Novem-
    ber 21, 2005 through the date of entry of the judgment at 4.30% per
    annum, and at the rate of 4.82% per annum after the date of entry of judg-
    ment until the judgment was paid. See Acequipa, Inc. v. Clinton (In re
    Acequipa, Inc.), 
    34 F.3d 800
    , 818-19 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding pre-
    judgment interest was available on the value of property ordered paid by
    a creditor to a bankruptcy estate).
    IN RE TAYLOR                           3105
    because, first, the Taylors had made monthly payments on the
    auto loan and, second, the car had depreciated in value
    between the date of the purchase and the date of summary judg-
    ment.9 The bankruptcy court rejected USAA’s proposed rem-
    edy of simply avoiding the security interest because that
    remedy would leave USAA with a windfall in the amount of
    the payments the Taylors had made since purchasing the car.
    In granting judgment for the trustee, the bankruptcy court
    found the value of the security interest at the time of the trans-
    fer was the full value of the secured loan. The bankruptcy
    court authorized the following remedy:
    JUDGMENT is entered in favor of plaintiff Don
    Thacker and against defendant USAA Federal Sav-
    ings Bank for the principal sum of $18,020.00,
    together with interest thereon from November 21,
    2005 through the date of entry of this judgment at
    the rate of 4.30% per annum, and after the date of
    entry of judgment at the rate of 4.82% per annum,
    until paid, and execution shall issue therefor.
    Thacker v. USAA Federal Savings Bank (In re Taylors) No.
    07-04025-PBS (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Aug. 10, 2007). USAA
    was also entitled under the judgment to file an unsecured
    claim against the estate for the amount of judgment. USAA
    does not dispute the calculation of interest payments on the
    principal sum. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”)
    affirmed. USAA Federal Savings Bank v. Thacker (In re Tay-
    lors), 
    390 B.R. 654
    (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2008).
    II.   Standard of Review
    This court reviews the decision of the BAP de novo. Aalfs
    v. Wirum (In re Straightline Invs., Inc.), 
    525 F.3d 870
    , 876
    9
    On July 2, 2007, the Kelly Blue Book value of the car was between
    $14,240 (trade-in) and $15,895 (private party). As of the date of Thacker’s
    Motion for Summary Judgment, the Taylors still possessed the car.
    3106                         IN RE TAYLOR
    (9th Cir. 2008). We review the bankruptcy court’s decision
    for abuse of discretion: “The bankruptcy court’s conclusions
    of law are reviewed de novo, and its findings of fact are
    reviewed for clear error.” 
    Id. In applying
    our abuse of discre-
    tion test, we first “determine de novo whether the [bank-
    ruptcy] court identified the correct legal rule to apply to the
    relief requested.” United States v. Hinkson, 
    585 F.3d 1247
    ,
    1262 (9th Cir. 2009). If the bankruptcy court identified the
    correct legal rule, we then determine whether its “application
    of the correct legal standard [to the facts] was (1) illogical, (2)
    implausible, or (3) without support in inferences that may be
    drawn from the facts in the record.” 
    Id. (internal quotation
    marks omitted). If the bankruptcy court did not identify the
    correct legal rule, or its application of the correct legal stan-
    dard to the facts was illogical, implausible, or without support
    in inferences that may be drawn from the facts in the record,
    then the bankruptcy court has abused its discretion. 
    Id. III. Legal
    Analysis
    A.    Avoidance of the Lien
    The bankruptcy court correctly held Thacker could avoid
    the transfer of the security interest under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).10
    That section is designed to prohibit insolvent debtors, on the
    eve of filing for bankruptcy, from paying off their debts held
    by “preferred” creditors—those creditors whom the soon-to-
    be bankrupts wish to favor. Indeed, on appeal, USAA does
    not dispute the security interest was properly avoided as a
    preferential transfer under § 547. Nevertheless, it is useful to
    understand why the bankruptcy court found the transfer of the
    security interest (hereinafter “the transfer”) was avoidable.
    Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b):
    10
    This case was filed before the October 17, 2005 effective date of the
    Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.
    IN RE TAYLOR                         3107
    The trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of
    the debtor in property—
    (1) to or for the benefit of a creditor;
    (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by
    the debtor before such transfer was made;
    (3) made while the debtor was insolvent;
    (4) made—
    (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the fil-
    ing of the petition; or
    (B) between ninety days and one year before the
    date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at
    the time of such transfer was an insider; and
    (5) that enables such creditor to receive more than
    such creditor would receive if—
    (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this
    title;
    (B) the transfer had not been made; and
    (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to
    the extent provided by the provisions of this title.
    [1] The trustee proved the transfer met all the requirements
    necessary for the bankruptcy court to avoid the preferential
    transfer. The Taylors transferred the security interest to
    USAA. See § 547(b)(1). The transfer was in exchange for the
    $18,020 loan USAA made to the Taylors on August 30, 2005.
    See § 547(b)(2). Under section 547(f), debtors are presumed
    insolvent for the 90 days prior to filing for bankruptcy. See
    § 547(b)(3). The date of the transfer is the date the security
    3108                      IN RE TAYLOR
    interest was perfected, September 20, 2005, only 8 days
    before the Taylors filed for bankruptcy on September 28,
    2005. See § 547(b)(4).
    [2] As a result of the transfer, USAA received more than
    it would have received had the transfer not been made. See
    § 547(b)(5). When the transfer was made, USAA’s loan
    became secured by the car. When the Taylors declared bank-
    ruptcy, USAA was entitled to repossess the car if the Taylors
    defaulted on the loan. The car was valued at $19,500 at pur-
    chase and between $14,240 and $15,895 when Thacker filed
    the adversary action on behalf of the estate.
    [3] If the transfer had not occurred, and the Taylors had
    defaulted on the loan when they filed for bankruptcy, then
    USAA would be entitled only to file a claim for the value of
    the unpaid principal on the loan as an unsecured creditor. In
    that situation, the debtors would be less likely to make their
    monthly payments to USAA because unlike a lender with a
    perfected security interest who usually has the legal right to
    repossess the encumbered property upon default of the loan
    payments, an unsecured creditor must simply hope for repay-
    ment from the bankrupt estate. Because the transfer met all
    the requirements of § 547(b), the bankruptcy court correctly
    held the transfer avoidable.
    B.   The Transfer of the Security Interest, not the Loan,
    was Avoidable under § 547
    [4] When a creditor perfects a security interest for new
    value after the 20-day period provided for in § 547(c) and the
    debtors declare bankruptcy within 90 days, the trustee may
    avoid the transfer of the security interest, but not the underly-
    ing loan. For the purpose of bankruptcy law, courts treat the
    perfection of the security interest after twenty days as a new
    transfer that does not fall within any of the exceptions to 11
    U.S.C. § 547.
    IN RE TAYLOR                      3109
    [5] The Supreme Court has affirmed this approach. In
    Fidelity Financial Services, Inc. v. Fink, 
    522 U.S. 211
    (1998),
    aff’g In re Beasley, 
    183 B.R. 857
    , 862 (Bankr. W.D. Mo.
    1995), the debtor agreed to a purchase-money security interest
    with a creditor to purchase a car. There, as here, the lender
    perfected the security interest 21 days after the debtor took
    possession of the car and raised the enabling loan defense in
    response to the trustee’s adversarial action to avoid the trans-
    fer. 
    Id. at 213.
    The Court held state law grace periods for
    creditors to perfect security interests were inapplicable in the
    bankruptcy context. 
    Id. at 216-17.
    The creditor could not
    invoke the enabling loan defense when it perfected its security
    interest more than 20 days after the debtor took possession,
    even if state law created a grace period for the perfection of
    a security interest. 
    Id. As relevant
    here, the Court affirmed the
    bankruptcy court’s order setting aside the lien only. See In re
    
    Beasley, 183 B.R. at 862
    . Despite avoiding the transfer of the
    security interest, that bankruptcy court did not set aside the
    underlying loan for the purchase of the car. Accord Rodriguez
    v. Drive Financial Services, LP (In re Bremer), 
    408 B.R. 355
    ,
    359 (10th Cir. BAP 2009).
    [6] This approach seems well accepted by district courts.
    For example, in Kelley v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
    (In re Farmer), 
    209 B.R. 1022
    (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1997), the
    debtors executed a purchase-money security interest to pur-
    chase a Pontiac Grand Am. The creditor did not perfect its
    lien within 20 days of the debtors taking possession of the car.
    On appeal, the parties agreed the security interest was avoid-
    able as a preference, but disputed the correct remedy. 
    See 209 B.R. at 1024
    . The court noted: “The ‘transfer’ at issue in this
    case was a lien, not the vehicle.” 
    Id. The court
    ordered the
    security interest declared void and for the creditor to return
    the amount of the payments it received from the debtors. 
    Id. at 1026.
    That is what should have happened here.
    3110                       IN RE TAYLOR
    C.   However, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its
    discretion in holding it could award the value of the
    security interest
    [7] Section 550(a) gives a trustee two remedy options
    when the court avoids a preferential transfer. That section
    states:
    [T]o the extent that a transfer is avoided under sec-
    tion . . . 547 . . . of this title, the trustee may recover,
    for the benefit of the estate, the property transferred,
    or, if the court so orders, the value of such property,
    from — (1) the initial transferee of such transfer or
    the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made;
    or (2) any immediate or mediate transferee of such
    initial transferee.
    Thus, the bankruptcy court may award the trustee (1) the
    actual property, or (2) the value of the property. The statute
    does not explain when a court should award the trustee recov-
    ery of the actual property and when it should, in the alterna-
    tive, award the trustee recovery of the value of the property.
    The statute states only that a court must issue a “single satis-
    faction.” 11 U.S.C. § 550(d). Bankruptcy courts have discre-
    tion whether to award recovery under § 550, even when the
    transferred property is a lien. E.g., Rodriguez v. Drive Finan-
    cial Services, LP (In re Bremer), 
    408 B.R. 355
    , 359 (B.A.P.
    10th Cir. 2009). If a bankruptcy court permits the trustee
    recovery, the court has discretion whether to award the trustee
    recovery of the property transferred or the value of the prop-
    erty transferred. 
    Id. USAA contends
    the language “to the extent a transfer is
    avoided,” in § 550 limits the bankruptcy court’s choice of
    remedy to simply canceling the security interest. Ordinarily,
    when a trustee successfully brings an adverse action against
    a creditor, 11 U.S.C. § 551 provides the default remedy. That
    section states:
    IN RE TAYLOR                         3111
    Any transfer avoided under section 522, 544, 545,
    547, 548, 549, or 724(a) of this title, or any lien void
    under section 506(d) of this title, is preserved for the
    benefit of the estate but only with respect to property
    of the estate.
    A trustee, however, has the discretion to seek an alternative
    remedy under § 550 (“the trustee may recover . . .”) (emphasis
    added). See In re 
    Bremer, 408 B.R. at 358-59
    (“Preservation
    is automatic, while recovery is not. Recovery is necessary
    only when the remedy of avoidance, and therefore of preser-
    vation, is inadequate.”). USAA’s interpretation of the statute
    would render the majority of § 550 meaningless surplusage in
    the context of a non-possessory lien or security interest. We
    therefore reject USAA’s contention that, because the security
    interest was void ab initio, the bankruptcy court lacked discre-
    tion to award recovery under § 550. The security interest was
    not void ab initio once the bankruptcy court authorized the
    estate to recover the value of the security interest under § 550.
    [8] The next question is whether the bankruptcy court
    abused its discretion when it decided to award the estate the
    value of the security interest, instead of the security interest
    (the property transferred) itself. We hold it did not. The pur-
    pose of § 550(a) is “to restore the estate to the financial condi-
    tion it would have enjoyed if the transfer had not occurred.”
    E.g., Aalfs v. Wirum (In re Straightline Invs., Inc.), 
    525 F.3d 870
    , 883 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). A bank-
    ruptcy court ordinarily determines the value of the property to
    be the value at the time of the transfer, but has discretion on
    how to value the property so as to put the estate in its pre-
    transfer position. Joseph v. Madray (In re Brun), 
    360 B.R. 669
    , 674 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2007) (“Typically, courts equate
    ‘value’ with the fair market value of the subject property at
    the time of the transfer.”). In this case, the bankruptcy court
    held correctly that awarding the estate the value of the secur-
    ity interest would more closely restore the estate to its pre-
    transfer position than simply avoiding the transfer.
    3112                      IN RE TAYLOR
    Addressing this exact issue, the BAP held a bankruptcy
    court had discretion to award the property or the value of the
    property in order to avoid a lien. In re 
    Bremer, 408 B.R. at 358-59
    . In re Bremer involved two consolidated cases whose
    facts were indistinguishable from the present case. The debt-
    ors loaned auto buyers the purchase price of their cars through
    purchase-money security interests from the purchasers. The
    security interests were avoidable under § 547 and the trustee
    brought adversarial actions to avoid the transfers of the secur-
    ities interests. 
    Id. at 358.
    The bankruptcy court avoided the
    transfers but held that the correct remedy was to return the
    property—the security interest—to the estate. 
    Id. The BAP
    affirmed on the ground that the bankruptcy
    courts’ remedy, to return the security interest, was not an
    abuse of the courts’ discretion. 
    Id. at 361.
    The BAP did not
    hold the only available remedy was to avoid the security inter-
    est. 
    Id. at 360
    (“[W]e decline to hold that § 550(a) relief is
    unavailable in every lien avoidance case.”). Instead, the BAP
    noted, “there are circumstances in which avoiding and pre-
    serving a lien under § 551 may not suffice to put the estate
    back to its pre-petition position . . . and awarding the trustee
    the value of the vehicle was the proper § 550 remedy.” 
    Id. The BAP
    went on to identify two possible situations where
    avoiding a lien is an insufficient remedy and recovery of the
    value of the security interest is necessary to restore the estate
    to its pre-transfer position. First, “[w]here the property is
    unrecoverable or its value diminished by conversion or depre-
    ciation, courts will permit the recovery of value.” 
    Id. And sec-
    ond, “when the value is readily determinable and a monetary
    award would work a savings for the estate.” 
    Id. In contrast,
    “[w]hen the record is devoid of evidence on the property’s
    market value or when conflicting evidence exists on the value
    of the transferred property, courts have ordered the property
    to be returned.” 
    Id. Here, the
    bankruptcy court held the value of the security
    interest was diminished by depreciation and payments the
    IN RE TAYLOR                             3113
    Taylors had made by the time the court acted on the trustee’s
    motion to avoid the security interest. Hence, the bankruptcy
    court awarded the value of the security interest to restore the
    estate to the position in which it would have been had the
    transfer of the security interest to USAA not been made. The
    bankruptcy court was attempting to correct for the difference
    between the value of the security interest at the time of the
    transfer (September 20, 2005) and the value of the security
    interest at the time of judgment (August 10, 2007). We agree
    that the value of a security interest is determined in part by the
    value of the secured asset, in this case the value of the Tay-
    lors’ car. Hence, the depreciation of the value of the car low-
    ered the value of the security interest. Furthermore, the value
    of the security interest is determined in part by the outstand-
    ing balance of the Taylors’ debt. As the Taylors made pay-
    ments to reduce their debt, the value of the security interest
    diminished.
    [9] The error here stems from the bankruptcy court’s deter-
    mination of the value of the security interest. The bankruptcy
    court attempted to make up for the diminution of the security
    interest’s value—for payments made and depreciation in the
    value of the car—in its remedy.
    We understand the bankruptcy court’s reasoning to be as
    follows: If USAA had not received a valid security interest in
    the Camry when the Taylors purchased it, the Taylors could
    have acquired another loan, e.g. from Bank X, for an amount
    equal to the value of the original loan in exchange for trans-
    ferring the security interest in the car to Bank X. Thus, when
    the Taylors filed for bankruptcy, the estate would have had
    the automobile, an unsecured debt of $18,020 owed to USAA,
    and a secured debt of $18,020 owed to Bank X.11 The estate
    11
    This raises the question why the bankruptcy court thought the Taylors
    could only get the value of the original loan, $18,020, and not the full pur-
    chase price of the car, $19,500. There was no evidence whether market
    conditions in 2005 would have provided for a fully-financed, no down
    payment purchase. The bankruptcy court assumed the Bank X loan would
    have allowed Bank X properly to perfect its security interest.
    3114                      IN RE TAYLOR
    would have had the automobile, an unsecured debt of $18,020
    owed to USAA, and a secured debt of $18,020 owed to Bank
    X. The bankruptcy court tried to recreate this alternative sce-
    nario through its judgment, except instead of USAA holding
    the unsecured debt and another bank holding the secured debt,
    USAA was to hold both.
    The bankruptcy court’s premise, which the BAP seems to
    have accepted without 
    discussion, 390 B.R. at 665
    n.13, that
    upon the purchase of the Camry, the Taylors could get a loan
    and that such a loan would be for $18,020, is not supported
    by the evidence. There is no evidence in the record to support
    the Trustee’s claim that the security interest was worth a loan
    of $18,020, which would make it more likely than not that
    Bank X would loan that amount on the Camry. Additionally,
    there is no evidence that a second bank would have loaned the
    Taylors $18,020 in exchange for a secured interest in the
    Camry when any bank with access to honest financial docu-
    ments would have seen that the Taylors had just incurred an
    $18,020 debt to USAA. Furthermore, we question the estate’s
    claims that the car was worth the full $18,020 when, 21 days
    after the Taylors took possession, USAA perfected its security
    interest. The estate’s motion does not contain any support or
    explanation why the Camry’s value would not have started to
    depreciate the moment the Taylors drove their vehicle off the
    dealer’s lot.
    [10] For these reasons, we hold the bankruptcy court
    abused its discretion. The bankruptcy court’s finding that (1)
    another bank would loan $18,020 collateralized by a security
    interest, and (2) the value of the security interest was equal to
    an unsecured loan of $18,020 was “without support in infer-
    ences that may be drawn from the facts in the record.” Hink-
    
    son, 585 F.3d at 1262
    (quotation marks omitted).
    Ordinarily, where a lower court bases its judgment on a
    clearly erroneous finding of fact, we remand for further find-
    ings consistent with our opinion. In this case, however, no
    IN RE TAYLOR                         3115
    remand is necessary. It is well established that in deciding to
    award an estate the value of property, a bankruptcy court must
    decide “whether there is conflicting evidence as to the value
    of the property and whether the value of the property is read-
    ily determinable.” 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 550.02[3][a], at
    550-9-10 (15th ed. re 2008).
    Where the value of the property cannot be easily or readily
    determined—as is the case here—the correct remedy is to
    return the property, not award an estimate of the value of the
    property. Id; accord In re 
    Bremer, 408 B.R. at 360
    . For exam-
    ple, in In re McLaughlin, 
    183 B.R. 171
    (Bankr. W.D. Wis.
    1995), the bankruptcy court avoided the transfer of a security
    interest in a mobile home because the security interest was not
    perfected within the time specified under § 547(c). The bank-
    ruptcy court held the trustee could not recover the value of the
    property because the value was not readily 
    determined. 183 B.R. at 177
    (“if the market value of the property can be read-
    ily determined and would work a savings for the estate, the
    trustee may recover value rather than the property.”). The
    court held the value of the lien was related to the market price
    of the mobile home, but did not specify how. 
    Id. Nevertheless, because
    the value of the mobile home one month after pur-
    chase was not necessarily the same as the purchase price, the
    bankruptcy court declined to award the trustee the value of the
    property. 
    Id. Here twenty-one
    days elapsed between the day
    the Taylors took possession of the Camry and when they
    transferred the security interest to USAA, but we see no rea-
    son why a nine day difference would change the fact that the
    value of the security interest was not readily ascertainable.
    [11] We find the value of the security interest at the time
    of the filing of the bankruptcy petition is not readily ascertain-
    able from this record. Therefore, the only available remedy is
    to return to the estate the property, i.e., the security interest,
    and not the value of the property.12
    12
    We do not reach the question whether “value” as used in § 550 may
    extend beyond a simple money judgment to include injunction-style reme-
    dies such as loans.
    3116                         IN RE TAYLOR
    The only remaining wrinkle is what to do with the pay-
    ments made to USAA. The record does not include a clear
    description of the schedule of payments to USAA. Some, pos-
    sibly all, of the payments came from the Taylors’ post-
    petition exempt income. We do not see any reason to return
    those payments to the Taylors. The parties, however, have not
    addressed this issue so we remand to the bankruptcy court to
    address the payment issue in the first instance.
    Some of the payments, however, may have been paid by
    the estate, either following the Taylors’ declaration of bank-
    ruptcy, or, by the Taylors during the 90 days preceding their
    declaration. Any such payments must be returned by USAA
    to the estate, either as postpetition transactions under 11
    U.S.C. § 549, or, as a prepetition preferential transaction
    under 11 U.S.C. § 547. We remand to the district court to
    determine whether the estate made any pre- or post-petition
    transfers to USAA in payment of the loan and, if so, whether
    those payments should be returned to the estate.
    We note in passing that Thacker’s objection to canceling
    the security interest, on the grounds that if USAA returned the
    monthly payments made by the Taylors and then had an unse-
    cured claim for the original $18,020, the calculation of pre-
    judgment interest on the monthly payments would prove diffi-
    cult or complicated, lacks merit. The parties should have
    records of the timing of each monthly payment, and they can
    calculate the same 4.30% per year simple interest, as awarded
    by the bankruptcy court in its first remedy, on each recover-
    able monthly payment until USAA has satisfied the judgment.13
    13
    The bankruptcy court was correct to award prejudgment interest. See
    Acequipa, Inc. v. Clinton (In re Acequipa, Inc.), 
    34 F.3d 800
    , 818-19 (9th
    Cir. 1994). The same rate of 4.30% per year simple interest should be
    used.
    IN RE TAYLOR                      3117
    IV.   Conclusion
    [12] The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision was cor-
    rect to the extent it held a bankruptcy court had discretion to
    award a trustee the value of a security interest that was
    avoided under § 547. The bankruptcy court, however, clearly
    erred in determining the correct value of the security interest.
    We reverse with instructions for the bankruptcy court to avoid
    the security interest and to determine in the first instance how
    to handle the recovery of the monthly payments.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.