1 2 POSTED ON WEBSITE 3 NOT FOR PUBLICATION 4 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 In re ) Case No. 17-27397-E-13 ) 10 GEVORG GEORGE POLADYAN and ) ARMINE ASATRYAN, ) 11 ) Debtors. ) 12 ) ) 13 GEVORG G. POLADYAN and ) Adv. Proc. No. 18-2130 ARMINE ASATRYAN, ) 14 ) Plaintiffs, ) 15 ) v. ) 16 ) TAPAN TRIVEDI, ) 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 ___________________________________) 19 This Supplemental Memorandum Decision is not appropriate for publication. It may be cited for persuasive value on the matters addressed. 20 21 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OPINION AND DECISION 22 The trials in Adversary Proceedings 18-2130 and 18-2014 were concluded with the court 23 stating its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law orally on the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), Fed. 24 R. Bankr. P. 7052. The trials for the two Adversary Proceedings were jointly conducted due to the 25 necessary determination of facts and conclusions of law that are common to both Adversary 26 Proceedings. This Supplemental Memorandum is issued to document the Undisputed Facts as 27 agreed by the Parties and clearly state the burden of proof/persuasion standards for the two 28 Adversary Proceedings, and is made as part of the court’s Findings and Conclusions. 1 The Parties have documented the undisputed facts in their Statement of Undisputed Facts 2 filed in Adversary Proceeding 18-2130 on July 22, 2019 (Dckt. 68), a copy of which is attached 3 hereto as Addendum “A.” 4 Adversary Proceeding 19-2130 was one commenced by Gevorg Poladyan and Armine 5 Asatryan, the two Debtors in the Chapter 13 case No. 17-27397 (“Debtors”), objecting to the claim 6 filed by Tapan Trivedi, the predecessor in interest to Judith Ambrus and Emeric Ambrus 7 (“Creditors”), who were substituted in as the real parties in interest for the trial. Judith Ambrus and 8 Emeric Ambrus were asserting in Adversary Proceeding 18-2014 that the obligation represented by 9 their claim was nondischargeable. 10 For the claim asserted in Proof of Claim No. 1-1, the prima facie evidentiary value of Proof 11 of Claim No. 1-1 was rebutted by the two Debtors, placing the burden of proof on Creditors to 12 establish the claim by a preponderance of the evidence, as well as the alleged grounds for 13 nondischargeability of the asserted claim. Lundell v. Anchor Constr. Specialists, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2000); Grogan v. Garner,

(1991). 15 As stated on the record, the court determined that Creditors failed to establish there was an 16 obligation owed upon which a claim could be asserted and for which an obligation could be 17 determined nondischargeable. 18 Judgment has been granted for Debtors in both Adversary Proceedings and against Creditors 19 on all claims therein. Separate judgments are entered by the court for each Adversary Proceeding. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ADDENDUM "A"

i 4 Law Offices of Peter G. Macaluso Peter G. Macaluso #215730 7230 South Land Park Drive #127 3 Sacramento, California 95831 Telephone: 916-392-6591 Facsimile: 916-392-6590 5} Attorney for Creditor, Tapan Trivedi, Administrator of the Estate of Ortansa Ambrus-Cernat 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO 11 12 13 | IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 17-27397-D-7 GEVORG G. POLADYAN, ADV. NO. 18-02130 ARMINE ASATRYAN, 15 DEBTORS, / 16 DATE: AUGUST 5, 2019 GEVORG G. POLADYAN TIME: 10:00 A.M. ARMINE ASATRYAN DEPT: E - COURTROOM 33 HONORABLE JUDGE SARGIS 18 PLAINTIFFS

19 TAPAN TRIVEDI, 20 | ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF ORTANSA 21 || AMBRUS-CERNAT JOINT STATEMENT 22 DEFENDANT. / OF UNDISPUTED FACTS 23 Plaintiff, Gevorg G. Poladyan and Armine Asatryan, 24 (hereinafter “Plaintiffs” or “Debtors”) and Defendant, Tapan trivedi, Administrator for the Estate of Ortansa Ambrus-Cernat 26 (hereinafter “Defendant”), by and through their respective 27 | undersigned attorneys hereby submit this joint statement of 28 || undisputed facts.

1] [—Tenozsronen wamenrac race ——=~S~S~S~*S~*~S~*~i 2 1. Plaintiffs, Gevorg G. Poladyan and Armine Asatryan (“Plaintiffs” or “Debtors”) are the 3 debtors in the underlying Chapter 13 case, Veo 4 case number 17-27397-D-7. 2. Plaintiffs are, and have been, married to each 5 other since 2008. 0 © 6 3. Defendant, the Estate of Ortansa Ambrus-Cernat \ © (“Defendant”) is the purported creditor in the NU 7 underlying Chapter 13 case. 8 Ortansa Ambrus-Cernat (“Ortansa”), now ~ deceased, was born 1/14/48, and exceeded the KO 9 age of 65 years in 2008. 5. Tapan Trivedi was the Administrator of the 10 estate of Ortansa Ambrus-Cernat, for which Ortansa’s daughter, Judith D. Ambrus, is a WO 11 beneficiary. 12| [aneric anbrus ie ortanse’s exhusbana. ——«dt Ye 13 7. Plaintiffs were owners of certain real property commonly known as 2242 Palmwood 14 Court, Rancho Cordova, CA., subject to a 1** C7 Deed of Trust (“Palmwood Property”). 15 In 2008 Plaintiffs were behind on the mortgage 16 for the Palmwood Property and were facing Veo foreclosure. 17 The Debtors were issued a Notice of Default as 18 to Palmwood Property. 10. | The Debtors were issued a Notice of Sale as to Vo 19 Palmwood Property. C7 (“Contract”). 21 12. |The contract was as follows: 22 (a) Defendant was to purchase Plaintiffs’ Palmwood Property at the short sale by taking N O 23 out a loan with Wells Fargo on her Oak Ave. property; 24 (bo) Defendant was to allow Plaintiffs to remain living in the Palmwood Property; 25 (c) Plaintiffs were to make the Oak Ave. property loan payments to Wells Fargo; 26 (d) Defendant was to transfer Palmwood Property to Plaintiffs; and 27 (e) Plaintiffs would refinance the Palmwood Property to pay off the acquired Oak Ave. 28 loan.

1 13. | The Contract Debtors entered into with Ortansa 2 held substantive terms in which Ortansa would borrow $180,000.00 on her home, buy Debtors’ / 3 home at a short-sale, and sell it back to them Vo when they qualified for a loan again, to which 4 Debtors agreed, and Ortansa performed. 14. | Debtors’ represented that if Ortansa saved 5 Palmwood from foreclosure by buying it ata & short-sale, and then transfer it to them, they 6 would refinance the property and repay her. 7 15. | Ortansa reasonably relied on Debtors’ representation to repay the loan from the Oak 8 Ave. property, which was used to buy the Palmwood Property. 9 16. | Debtors agreed that after a sufficient time ‘\ 10 had passed they would refinance the Palmwood PO Property and repay Ortansa. i 17. | Debtors’ made a fraudulent statements and 12 representations (“Representations”) to Ortansa. O 18. | These Representations were made from 4/30/11 14 19. |The Representations were made directly to i) 5 Ortansa by Debtors. 20. | Plaintiffs wrote Ortansa a handwritten letter, 16 promising to “pay the loan as soon as Ves possible.” 17 21. | Promises to make payments on this loan were 18 witnessed by Ortansa ’s daughter, Judith Ambrus. 19 22. □ Plaintiffs promised to care for Ortansa’s 20 mentally-challenged son after her death. 23. | Plaintiffs signed a Grant Deed to Ortansa on

22 24. |On or about 8/8/08, Ortansa purchased the VeS □□ Palmwood Property from Plaintiffs at a short y “I 23 sale for $150,000.00, wtrtr-money—from—a-tearr 4 ye a? le on-~her—Oak Ave. property. 24 25. 8/8/08, Debtor Armine Asatryan received a 25 cashier’s check for $15,962.76 from Ortansa for O the purchase of the Palmwood Property in a 26 short sale. 27 26. |The relationship between the Debtors and Ortansa was not disclosed to the Mortgage 28 Company. 27. |The Documentary Transfer Tax on the sale from Plaintiffs’ to Ortansa was $165.00.

1 28. | Ortansa allowed the Plaintiffs to remain in 2 the Palmwood Property, and carried residential insurance through State Farm, policy #55-BP- Ye 3 R539-9. 29. |After the short-sale closed, the Plaintiffs 4 remained in the Palmwood Property, where they Ve 5 reside presently. 30. | Plaintiffs intended to repay Ortansa’s 6 mortgage payment after Ortansa transferred the NO Palmwood Property back into Plaintiffs’ name. 7 31. | Plaintiffs obtained a Seller’s Permit for “IN C2 8 N OUT HONDA” on 3/1/11. 9 32. |On or about 2/2/12 Ortansa signed a grant deed for V the Palmwood Property to Debtor Armine Asatryan. 10 33. |The grant deed signed on 2/2/12 states that there was “No Concideration” and exemption from documentary transfer tax exemption under Yes Revenue and Tax code section 11911, when filed with the recorded. 13 34. |On 10/1/12, Plaintiffs signed a written loan contract with Outsource Legal Support, LLC 14 (“Outsource”), for $100,000.00 (“Outsource 4g Note #1). 35. | Plaintiffs testified they “didn’t use a bank” 16 when asked “what bank did you put this $100,000.00 in?” at their 341 Meeting of 17 Creditors 4/30/18. Veo 18 See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 12, lines 19 9-10. . 20 36. | Plaintiffs testified that they were not given the full $100,000.00 when they signed for the 21 Outsource Note #1. Ves 22 See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 13, line 23 12. 4 37. | Plaintiffs testified that instead of receiving the loan in a lump sum, they “borrowed the 5 money a [every] month” and that “it came up to this amount.” Ve Y 26 See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 12, lines 24-25. 28

38. | Plaintiffs testified the money from Outsource 2 Note #1 was “given to me little by little, three thousand, two thousand, five thousand.” 3 See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 \th 4 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 12, lines 14-17. 5 39. | Plaintiffs testified “Yes, sir,” when asked 6 “So he gave you cash?” See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 yer 7 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 12, lines 8 21-22. 40. | Plaintiffs testified “Yes,” when asked “and 9 you went and bought money orders for cash?” 10 See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 Wwe Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 12, lines 11 23-24, 12 41. | Plaintiffs testified “Like we said, we didn’t put anything in a bank.” 13 VG See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 14 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 19, lines 11-12. 15 42. |In response to: “And she agreed with you guys 16 to buy the house so that you wouldn’t lose your house, right?”, the Plaintiffs testified 17 “Well, she - bought it because she had - she had - she had money. She could afford it. And □ 18 it was a short sale, it was a cheap house, and y 5 she bought it.” 19 See transcript from recorded proceedings, 341 20 Meeting of Creditors, 4/30/18, pg. 24, lines 7-13. 21 43. | Plaintiffs entered into a Loan Agreement, dated 4/1/13, in the amount of $80,000.00, □ 22 from Outsource Legal Support, LLC (Outsource Note #2). 23 On 3/1/14, Plaintiffs breached the agreement 24 by failing to make payments on the Oak Ave. □□ O 95 property. 45. |On 4/14/14, Plaintiff Armine Asatryan signed 26 an Agreement to Transfer Funds, that stated “the proceeds from the refinanced loan on 2242 27 Palmwood Ct., Rancho Cordova, CA will be 0) assigned during the escrow process to payoff / 28 the loan on the property 6005 Oak Ave., Carmichael, CA.” [46. [on 5/6/14 Ortansa passed away from cancer. |

47. |On or about 9/16/14, Plaintiffs obtained a 1** 2 Deed of Trust with Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corporation in the amount of $50,000.00, 3 secured by the Palmwood Property. Plaintiffs did not disclose Outsource Note #1 4 or Note #2 to Pinnacle Capital Mortgage Corporation before obtaining the $50,000.00 VEG 5 loan. 6 The funds Plaintiffs received from the 1** Deed of Trust with Pinnacle Capital Mortgage ¢ 7 Corporation were not paid to Defendant. g 50. |On 11/18/14, the Plaintiffs’ mortgage for the Palmwood Property purchase was held by Wells Ve 9 Fargo Home Mortgage. 10 51. | On 12/16/15, Defendant filed a civil action in Sacramento Superior Court against Debtors for C9 11 breach of contract, damages, and attorney fees, Case #34-2015-00188010 (“Civil Action”). 12 52. |Gevorg Poladyan and Armine Asatryan’s Answer : : wn B to the Civil Action was filed on or about Unkpo ww) 3/30/16, and never asserted the transfer was a reve 14 gift. 1 wees 53. | Outsource Legal Support, LLC recorded two (2) 15 Deeds of Trust on 9/5/17 for $100,000.00 and $80,000.00, and thereafter a UCC-1 Financial Ve? 16 Statement with the Secretary of State of California. 54. | Plaintiffs filed a petition for relief under 18 Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on 11/8/17. 05 19 55. | Judith D. Ambrus has personal knowledge of Ortansa making the loan to Debtors, and that A) O 20 Debtors were making payments on the loan. 1 56. | Outsource office is located at 1367 Garden Hwy., Unit 200, Sacramento, CA 95833. 22 57. | Friedman Law Firm, which is located at 1395 Garden Hwy., Unit #200, Sacramento, CA 95833, 23 was Attorney Gabriel Lieberman’s office CO location when the case was filed, and who was 24 the attorney of record. 25 58. | Both parties admit jurisdiction for this Adversary Proceeding exists pursuant to 28 VO O 26 U.S.C. 1334 and 157. 27 59. Both parties admit this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b) (2), and to the 28 extent any matter is non-core, consents to the € bankruptcy judge issuing all final orders and judgments in this Adversary proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

3 Dated: 5/15/19 /s/Peter G. Macaluso 4 Peter G. Macaluso, ; Attorney for Defendant

6 Dated: SA 8 attocn (pchettar fs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 Instructions to Clerk of Court 2 Service List - Not Part of Order/Judgment 3 The Clerk of Court is instructed to send the Order/Judgment or other court generated document transmitted herewith to the parties below. The Clerk of Court will send the document 4 via the BNC or, if checked ____, via the U.S. mail. 5 Debtors / Plaintiff-Debtors Attorney for the Debtors 6 7 Bankruptcy Trustee (if appointed in the Office of the U.S. Trustee case) Robert T. Matsui United States Courthouse 8 501 I Street, Room 7-500 Sacramento, CA 95814 9 Peter G. Macaluso, Esq. Peter L. Cianchetta, Esq. 10 7230 South Land Park Drive, #127 8788 Elk Grove Blvd., Ste. 2A Sacramento, CA 95831 Elk Grove, CA 95624 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28