ORDER

JEAN K. FITZSIMON, Bankruptcy Judge.

This 30th day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the Debtor's Memorandum of Law Supporting the Admissibility of Exhibit D-1, Wachovia Bank, N.A.'s 2008 Appraisal (the "Memorandum") and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s ("Wells Fargo" or the "Lender")1 Memorandum of Law Opposing the Admission of Debtor's Exhibit D-1 (the "Opposition");

AND the Debtor having filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on March 9, 2010 (docket entry no. 1);

AND Wells Fargo having filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay on March 25, 2010 (docket entry no. 26, the "Motion to Lift Stay"), seeking to exercise its rights with regard to a $4,250,000 note which granted Wells Fargo a first priority lien on 640 acres of undeveloped real property located in San Bernardino County, California (the "Property");

AND the Debtor having objected to the Motion to Lift Stay (docket no. 33);

AND a hearing on the Motion to Lift Stay having been held on April 14, 2010 (docket entry no. 38, the "Hearing");

AND during the Hearing, the Debtor having sought to introduce into evidence a 2008 appraisal report commissioned by Wachovia Bank (Wells Fargo's predecessor) and prepared by Joseph J. Blake and Associates, Inc., which valued the Property at $5,700,000 (the "Appraisal" or "Exhibit D-1");

AND Steven Katz, a Partner of the Debtor, having testified that the Appraisal was provided to him by a former employee of Wachovia Bank (Hearing audio at 3:10);2

AND Steven Katz further testifying that his understanding was that the Appraisal was obtained by the Lender due to the changing market and economic conditions in 2008 (Hearing audio at 3:11);

AND Steven Katz stating that he did not discuss the Appraisal with any employee at Wachovia Bank and does not recall who prepared an appraisal on the Property when it was originally purchased (Hearing audio at 3:12);

AND the Lender having objected to the admission of the Appraisal on the grounds that the Debtor laid no foundation for the admission of this evidence and failed to authenticate the document (Hearing audio at 3:09-10; 3:53);

AND the Debtor having counter-argued at the Hearing that Exhibit D-1 is admissible pursuant to the hearsay exceptions of admission against interest and as a business record of Wells Fargo3 (Hearing audio at 3:54-57);

AND following the presentation of testimony and evidence at the Hearing, the Court having denied the Motion to Lift Stay for reasons stated on the record in open court (Hearing audio at 4:51-57; docket entry no. 50);

AND although the Motion to Lift Stay having been denied at the Hearing, the Court having asked the parties to submit briefs with regard to the admissibility of Exhibit D-1 because its significance may become an issue at future hearings and with regard to future motions in this bankruptcy case;

AND the Debtor and Lender each having submitted briefs with regard to the question of the admissibility of Exhibit D-1 (docket entries nos. 39 and 41);

AND the party offering evidence has the burden of establishing its admissibility. See In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litigation, 1992 WL 323564, at *4 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 21,1992);

AND a court having "wide discretion to admit or exclude evidence under the provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Gumbs v. Int'l Harvester, Inc., 718 F.2d 88, 97 (3d Cir.1983);

Is Exhibit D-1 Admissible as a Business Record Under F.R.E. 803(6)?

AND the Debtor asserting that the Appraisal may be admitted as a business record exception to the hearsay rule (Memorandum, pgs. 6-7);4

AND Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) providing (in relevant portion) that the following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness

F.R.E. 803(6);

AND, according to the Third Circuit, it being the case that in order to admit a document under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the proponent must provide "foundation testimony" by "the custodian or other qualified witness" that

United States v. Pelullo, 964 F.2d 193, 200 (3d Cir.1992) (internal quotations and citations omitted);

AND the Debtor having provided only the testimony of two of its partners, Steven and Marvin Katz, that these individuals were either aware of or had received the Appraisal;5

AND neither Steven nor Marvin Katz having professed personal knowledge of who exactly performed the Appraisal or whether such a filing was standard practice for the Lender;

AND the Debtor having failed to provide any foundational testimony of the kind described and called for in Pelullo, namely a showing that the declarant of Exhibit B-1 had knowledge of the Property, that the Appraisal was conducted in a timely and proper manner, that the Appraisal was made in the regular course of Wells Fargo's business activity, and that such documents were part of the Lender's regular business practice;

AND the Debtor having failed to provide any evidence or cite to any authority to support its contention, made at the Hearing, that a regulation requires the Lender to acquire appraisals on the Property (Hearing audio at 3:55-3:57);6

Is Exhibit D-1 Admissible as an Admission Against Interest Pursuant to F.R.E. 801(d)(2)?

AND the Debtor further asserting that the Appraisal may be admitted into evidence as an admission by a party-opponent pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (Memorandum, pgs. 7-9);

AND Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) providing (in relevant portion) that the following are exceptions to the hearsay rule:

F.R.E. 801(d)(2);

AND the Debtor simply asserting in its Memorandum that the "Appraisal [was] commissioned by a secured creditor during a historic market crash, presumably to reevaluate its collateral, identified and verified by two witnesses for the Debtor ... [and] should be admitted as [an] admission by a party opponent under Rule 801(d)(2) as proof of what Wachovia believed the value of the subject Property to be...." (Memorandum at 9);

AND the Debtor having failed to demonstrate that any of the above five elements outlined in F.R.E. 801(d)(2) have been satisfied here. For example, the Appraisal is not Wells Fargo's own statement; there is no evidence either that the Lender has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth,7 that Exhibit B-1 is a statement by a person authorized by the Lender,8 or that the Appraisal was produced by Wells Fargo's agent or servant;9

AND the two cases cited by the Debtor in support of its argument that Exhibit D-1 is admissible as an admission against interest being inapposite;10

Conclusion

AND hearsay not being admissible unless specifically provided by the Federal Rules or statute. See F.R.E. 802;

AND in considering the above case and statutory law, the facts, the parties' pleadings, and the arguments and testimony made at the Hearing, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that