Goldman v. Kattouah (In Re Kattouah), 452 B.R. 604

The dispute centers on the valuation of the Property at 2812 South Telegraph Road, Bloomfield Township, Michigan, in a Chapter 13 case and related adversary proceeding.
Creditor valued the Property at $975,000 (with some discounts), Debtor valued it at $500,000, and the bankruptcy court valued it at $575,000 as of the petition date.
Creditor argued Debtor’s 2007 loan application value of $975,000 created a binding admission, influencing the plan and liquidation analysis.
An answer to the adversary complaint contained a single sentence in paragraph 25 that allegedly admitted the higher value, forming the basis of Creditor’s claim.
The bankruptcy court held hearings, denied Creditor’s motions for reconsideration, granted relief from stay for foreclosure, and ultimately confirmed Debtor’s second amended plan.
The plan’s liquidation analysis used the $575,000 value, leaving insufficient equity to unsecured creditors under the confirmed plan.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether paragraph 25 constitutes a binding judicial admission.	Kattouah argues paragraph 25 is a deliberate admission of solvent transfer at $975,000.	Kattouah contends paragraph 25 is inartful and inadvertent, not a clear, unambiguous admission.	No abuse of discretion; not a binding judicial admission.

Barnes v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 201 F.3d 815 (6th Cir.2000) (judicial admissions withdraw issues but are non-binding in later actions)
MacDonald v. Gen. Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337 (6th Cir.1997) (admissions must be deliberate, clear, and unambiguous)
Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare, 671 F.Supp.2d 975 (N.D.Ill.2009) (requires express concession to be a judicial admission)
Dixie Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Holland, 255 F.2d 304 (6th Cir.1958) (judicial admissions are binding within the proceeding)
Neuger v. United States (In re Tenna Corp.), 801 F.2d 819 (6th Cir.1986) (petition date as value reference in bankruptcy matters)