Opinion
Memorandum on Motion for Summary Judgment
ALAN JAROSLOVSKY, Bankruptcy Judge.
In the absence of special language in the order confirming the plan, the court might well agree that principles of claim preclusion render this case subject to summary adjudication. However, the order confirming the plan, insisted upon by the court pursuant to its responsibilities under Espinosa, provides:
PROVIDED HOWEVER, that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the plan,
1. Any provision of the plan purporting to discharge a debt is not approved. No debt subject to exception to discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 shall be adjudicated to be discharged or not discharged except in an adversary proceeding;
2. No lien on real property shall be removed, avoided or extinguished except by adversary proceeding pursuant to Rule 7001(2) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or contested matter pursuant to Rule 3012 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure;
3. With the sole exception of the valuation of a claim secured by personal property, a proof of claim shall supercede any plan provision purporting to limit or disallow a claim.
Thus, while creditor Aurora Loan Services is entitled to only $1, 676.77 per month, with the balance of its claim to be paid by sale or refinance between 48 and 60 months of the effective date of the Plan, the exact amount allowable on its secured claim and whether any part of its lien is avoided have not been adjudicated and have been specifically reserved for this adversary proceeding.
For the foregoing reasons, the debtor's motion for summary judgment based on principles of claim preclusion will be denied. The court declines to rule summarily on the other issues raised by the motion, as the motion was brought too close to the trial date to permit consideration. Counsel for Aurora Loan Services, LLC, shall submit an appropriate form of order.