This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
Case 25-23251-MEH Doc 50 Filed 01/07/26 Entered 01/07/26 15:54:27 Desc Main
Document Page 9 of 12
In re Seaview Apartments LLC
Case No. 25-23251 (MEH)
18:11). The marketing efforts resulted in thirty-nine (39) nondisclosure agreements signed, and
seven (7) offers, ultimately leading to a bidding war between the top two offerors. (Id. 18:9-20:6).
Mr. Denton testified that the $9.05 million offer was ultimately “the best offer that could be
obtained.” (Id. at 20:14-20:20).
When the Circuit Court judge allowed parties, including the Debtor, to cross-examine Mr.
Denton, the Debtor declined to do so. (Id. 21:20-25, Doc. No. 36). When the Circuit Court judge
asked if any party, including the Debtor, had any evidence in response to the Receiver’s evidence,
the Debtor simply stated: “Seaview has no evidence, Your Honor.” (Id. 34:21-25). And at the
conclusion of the hearing when the Circuit Court judge allowed parties, including the Debtor, the
opportunity to raise any final comments or objections to the proposed sale, the Debtor responded
only, “Seaview objects. That is our only comment, Judge,” without making any specific objections
to the sale or to the receiver’s marketing efforts that the Debtor now raises in its bankruptcy case.
(Id. 34:17-20).
Unsurprisingly, the Court entered an order approving the sale (the “Sale Order”) over the
Debtor’s general and curt objection. (See generally Circuit Court Order, Ex. J to FourLeaf’s Br.,
Doc. No. 18-11). In so doing, the Circuit Court recognized that the proposed sale was, among
other things, heavily marketed, negotiated at arm’s length and proposed in good faith, and in the
best interests of the Debtor, FourLeaf, and the Property. (See id.). The Circuit Court also
recognized that the proposed sale was “probably the very best that can be done for the tenants, if
not, the fairest, and the best thing that can be done for the tenants.” (Hr’g Tr. 38:7-12, Doc. No.
36). If the Debtor had an issue with the Circuit Court’s approval of the sale, including the
Receiver’s marketing of the property, such remedy is arguably an appeal of such order within the
State Court system, not relitigating the issues here in hopes of receiving a different outcome in
Page 9 of 12Jump to an indexed page (12 of 12)