is believable; in the event that Debtor in fact intended to assert the higher valuation, given her previously well-established position that the valuation was lower, this isolated statement is unable to establish a deliberate and unambiguous position. Third, Debtor’s statement in the adversary proceeding was not necessarily inconsistent with her position in the bankruptcy because each was in reference to a different time. Had the adversary action gone to trial, Debtor would have had to rely on the value of the Property in December 2007, at the time of the allegedly fraudulent transfer. In the bankruptcy case, the relevant valuation is that in April 2009, at the time of filing the petition. See Neuger v. United States (In re Tenna Corp.), 801 F.2d 819, 820, 823 (6th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Some sixteen months passed between the two
holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due holding petition date is proper date to value assets for a hypothetical liquidation under 11 usc  547b holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act holding the petition date is the appropriate date to value the collateral when the debtors intend to remain in the home holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the date of filing the petition for dissolution as the valuation date for equitable distribution