In re King

53 Citing cases

  1. In re Millspaugh

    Case No. 03-00726 (Bankr. D. Idaho Oct. 24, 2003)   Cited 41 times

    On June 5, the Debtors filed a brief in support of confirmation of their amended plan. Doc. No. 19. They urged the Court to avoid Homecoming's lien under the authority of Zimmer v. PSB Lending Corp. (In re Zimmer), 313 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2002), and to do so through the plan confirmation process rather than an adversary proceeding. Doc. No. 19 at 1 (citing In re King, 290 B.R. 641 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2003)). The Debtors served Homecoming's counsel with the brief on June 5, and also again served such counsel with notice of the July 2 hearing.

  2. Best v. GMAC Mortg. LLC (In re Best)

    Case Number 07-60139 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Jul. 5, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    The following two facts are required to establish that a junior lien is wholly unsecured: (1) the value of the secured property and (2) the amount due on the first mortgage. In re King, 290 B.R. 641, 648 (CD. I11. 2003). "[T]he plan may . . . modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor's principal residence . . . ."

  3. In re Jarvis

    390 B.R. 600 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2008)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that discharge is a necessary prerequisite to permanency of lien avoidance

    2001); In re Waters, 276 B.R. 879 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2002); In re King, 290 B.R. 641 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003). Contra In re Barnes, 207 B.R. 588 (Bankr.

  4. Victorio v. Billingslea

    470 B.R. 545 (S.D. Cal. 2012)   Cited 18 times
    Holding such claims are allowed

    The process of bifurcating the secured from the unsecured claim is referred to as a “strip-down” because the lien is stripped down to the value of the collateral. In re King, 290 B.R. 641, 645 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003). “Where the collateral is fully encumbered by a prior lien so that no value is available to support a junior lienholder's secured claim, the entire debt is classified as unsecured.”

  5. In re Tran

    431 B.R. 230 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2010)

    In Jarvis, the court held that " [c]onsistent with its past practice, this Court also holds that the lien-avoiding effect of the confirmed plan, while established at confirmation, is contingent upon a discharge pursuant to Section 1328." Apart from " past practice," the primary authorities cited by Jarvis were In re Lilly, 378 B.R. 232 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2007) and In re King, 290 B.R. 641 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003), cases out of the same district.           Lilly, however, dealt with the rights of " holders of secured claims" and § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I)(bb), which expressly conditions any permanent modification of the rights of a holder of a secured claim on either full payment of the underlying contractual debt or the debtor receiving a " discharge under section 1328."

  6. In re Tran

    431 B.R. 230 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2010)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that “the Bankruptcy Code does not prohibit strip off of a wholly unsecured junior lien in a chapter 13 case, merely because the debtor is ineligible for discharge under § 1328(f)”

    Apart from "past practice," the primary authorities cited by Jarvis were In re Lilly, 378 B.R. 232 (Bankr. C.D.Ill. 2007) and In re King, 290 B.R. 641 (Bankr.C.D.Ill. 2003), cases out of the same district. Lilly, however, dealt with the rights of "holders of secured claims" and § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I)(bb), which expressly conditions any permanent modification of the rights of a holder of a secured claim on either full payment of the underlying contractual debt or the debtor receiving a "discharge under section 1328."

  7. In re Fenn

    428 B.R. 494 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2010)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that by virtue of Section 1325 holder of secured claim retains the lien until the underlying debt is paid in full or discharged

    Where the collateral is fully encumbered by a prior lien such that the junior lien has no value to support it, the modification is referred to as a "strip-off" since the lien is stripped and eliminated. In re King, 290 B.R. 641, 645 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003). Section 506(d) provides:

  8. In re Stassi

    In Bankruptcy Case No. 09-71563 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    Numerous courts have held that wholly unsecured junior liens on a debtor's residence may be stripped off in Chapter 13 cases. See, e.g.,In re Waters, 276 B.R. 879 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2002); In re King, 290 B.R. 641 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2003); In re Bennett, 312 B.R. 843 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2004). The strip off and avoidance of wholly unsecured junior liens is based on § 506 of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 506; Waters, 276 B.R. at 888; King, 290 B.R. at 648.

  9. In re Bryan

    357 B.R. 12 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2006)   Cited 1 times

    As pointed out by the court in Bennett, had a debtor contested the validity, extent or priority of the lien, he/ she would have had to commence an adversary proceeding (Id. at 847); otherwise, it is appropriate to seek the relief by motion or as part of the confirmation process. In this regard, the court in Yekel found particular favor with In re King, 290 B.R. 641 (Bankr.C.D.Ill.2003). In King the court indicated that

  10. In re Ayre

    339 B.R. 684 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that the provisions of the debtors' confirmed plan were res judicata and binding on the taxing authority as it had notice of the plan and the debtors' proposed treatment of its disputed claim

    See Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3015(f) and 9014. Courts reviewing whether a matter is of the type which may appropriately be resolved as part of the confirmation process have looked to whether the matter is one which is generally considered to be a contested matter or one which requires the filing of an adversary complaint. In re King, 290 B.R. 641, 647 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 2003); Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7001. Contested matters may be resolved as part of the confirmation process.