Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Fourth Circuit in affirming the debtor’s ability to strip a wholly unsecured lien in chapter 13 where no discharge is available. In re Scantling, No. 13-10558 (June 18, 2014).
After reviewing the historical development of lien stripping under the Bankruptcy Code, the court, relying on its previous decision in Tanner v. Firstplus Financial, Inc., 217 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2000), stated that in order for a claim to be “secured” and trigger the antimodification provisions of § 1322(b)(2), the collateral must have at least some value. In this case, it was undisputed that the amount owed on the first mortgage exceeded the property value, leaving no collateral value to support the junior mortgages. The court stated that though BAPCPA amended the discharge provision of 1328(f), it did not amend the two operative sections for lien stripping in chapter 13: §§ 506 or 1322(b)(2). Therefore, the court concluded the analysis for lien stripping in chapter 13 cases is the same irrespective of whether the debtor is eligible for a discharge.
The court rejected creditor’s argument based on In re Gerardin, 447 B.R. 342 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2011), that its claim was an “allowed secured claim” for purposes of section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i). Section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) provides that creditors holding allowed secured claims retain their liens until (1) payment in full under applicable non-bankruptcy law, or (2) discharge. As the Eleventh Circuit correctly noted in this case the creditor did not hold an allowed secured claim, and therefore section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) was inapplicable.
Tags: Lien Stripping, chapter 20
