A clear majority of courts have held that the hanging paragraph does not operate to prevent a Chapter 13 debtor from modifying the rate of interest to be paid on a secured 910 claim. Drive Financial Services, L.P. v. Jordan, 521 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2008); In re Morris, 370 B.R. 796 (E.D.Wis. 2007); In re Harrison, 394 B.R. 879, 883 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 2008) (Squires, J.); In re Estrada, 387 B.R. 875, 880 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 2008); In re Hopkins, 371 B.R. 324, 327 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 2007) (Goldgar, J.); In re Phillips, 362 B.R. 284, 307 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 2007); In re Vagi, 351 B.R. 881, 886-87 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2006); In re Trejos, 352 B.R. 249, 266-68 (Bankr.D.Nev. 2006), aff'd on other grounds, 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Contra In re Franklin-Kidwell, 2008 WL 4516299 (Bankr.C.D.Ill. 2008). The Supreme Court decision in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 124 S.Ct. 1951, 158 L.Ed.2d 787 (2004), made the calculation of the interest rate to be paid on secured claims through Chapter 13 plans routine by adopting the prime-plus formula.
First, § 506(a) does not provide for the definition of an allowed secured claim; rather, it provides a means by which to measure the amount of an allowed secured claim. In re Morris, 370 B.R. 796, 798 (E.D. Wis. 2007). See also In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832 (7th Cir. 2007) ("[I]t is a mistake to assume, as the majority of bankruptcy courts have done, that § 506 is the only source of authority for a deficiency judgment when the collateral is insufficient"); DaimlerChrylser Financial Services North America, LLC v. Wilson (In re Wilson), 374 B.R. 251, 255 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2007) ("[W]e agree with the majority view that § 506(a) is not a definitional section dictating the only method of obtaining an `allowed secured claim.'"
46, with interest on that full balance at the Till rate pursuant to Section 1325(a)(5)(B). In re Morris, 370 B.R. 796 (E.D.Wis.2007). Because it provides for a cure without maintenance of the contract payments, and modifies AMERICREDIT'S claim but fails to fully comply with Section 1325(a)(5)(B), the Amended Plan is not confirmable.
ation consistent with § 1322(b)(2) but must be treated as if it is fully secured, without regard to collateral value — most including postconfirmation interest at the rate described in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 124 S.Ct. 1951, 158 L. Ed. 2d 787 (2004). See Community Am. Credit Union v. Griffin (In re Gallagher), Nos. KS-07-051, 06-22047, 2007 WL 2745808 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2007); Daimlerchrysler Fin. Servs. N. Am. LLC v. Griffin (In re Wilson), 374 B.R. 251 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2007); In re Quick, 371 B.R. 459 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2007); Trejos v. VW Credit Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007); Citifinancial Auto v. Smith, No. 07-2190-JAR, 2007 WL 2092980 (D. Kan. July 18, 2007); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hipsher, No. 07-2207-JAR, 2007 WL 2099701 (D. Kan. July 18, 2007); Sparks v. HSBC Auto Fin., No. 1:06cv670, 2007 WL 2080289 (S.D. Ohio July 18, 2007); Horr v. Jake Sweeney Smartmart, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00010, 2007 WL 1989611 (S.D. Ohio July 6, 2007); In re Morris, 370 B.R. 796 (E.D. Wis. 2007); Citifinancial Auto v. Hernandez-Simpson (In re Hernandez-Simpson), 369 B.R. 36 (D. Kan. 2007); In re Davis, No. 07-50761 RFH, 2007 WL 2710459 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. Sept. 12, 2007); In re Thomas, No. 06-21363, 2007 WL 2462664 (Bankr. D. Kan. Aug. 27, 2007); In re Williams, No. 06-32921-KRH, 2007 WL 2122131 (Bankr. E.D. Va. July 19, 2007); In re Hopkins, 371 B.R. 324 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007); In re Marshall, No. 06-81935, 2007 WL 1725196 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. June 11, 2007); In re Lorenz, 368 B.R. 476 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007); In re Adaway, 367 B.R. 571 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2007); In re Phillips, 362 B.R. 284 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2007); In re McCormick, No. 06-23358-SVK, 2006 WL 3499226 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. Dec. 5, 2006); In re Henry, 353 B.R. 261 (Bankr. D. Or. 2006); In re Grunau, 355 B.R. 334 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006); In re White, 352 B.R. 633 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2006); In re Brill, 350 B.R. 853 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2006); In re Turner, 349 B.R. 437 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006); In re Ross, 355 B.R. 53 (Bankr. W.D. Ten
odified at confirmation consistent with § 1322(b)(2) but must be treated as if it is fully secured, without regard to collateral value — most including postconfirmation interest at the rate described in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 124 S.Ct. 1951, 158 L.Ed.2d 787 (2004). See Community Am. Credit Union v. Griffin (In re Gallagher), Nos. KS-07-051, 06-22047, 2007 WL 2745808 (10th Cir. BAP Sept. 21, 2007); DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. N. Am. LLC v. Griffin (In re Wilson), 374 B.R. 251 (10th Cir. BAP 2007); In re Quick, 371 B.R. 459 (10th Cir. BAP 2007); Trejos v. VW Credit Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007); CitiFinancial Auto v. Smith, No. 07-2190-JAR, 2007 WL 2092980 (D.Kan. July 18, 2007); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Hipsher, No. 07-2207-JAR, 2007 WL 2099701 (D.Kan. July 18, 2007); Sparks v. HSBC Auto Fin., No. 1:06cv670, 2007 WL 2080289 (S.D.Ohio July 18, 2007); Horr v. Jake Sweeney Smartmart, Inc., No. 1:07-CV-00010, 2007 WL 1989611 (S.D.Ohio July 6, 2007); In re Morris, 370 B.R. 796 (E.D.Wis.2007); Citifinancial Auto v. Hernandez-Simpson (In re Hernandez-Simpson), 369 B.R. 36 (D.Kan.2007); In re Davis, No. 07-50761 RFH, 2007 WL 2710459 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.
This Court, like most courts, holds the view that Till, a pre-BAPCPA case, remains applicable under BAPCPA, even as to 910 claims. See In re Morris, 370 B.R. 796 (E.D.Wis. 2007). Because it is separate from the present value payment provision, and given the remedial purpose of the additional language added by BAPCPA aimed at resolving a split over when a secured creditor loses its lien, the lien retention provision is properly interpreted as not affecting the amount that must be paid on a secured claim, through the plan, in a cramdown, which is governed by the present value payment provision.
See, e.g., In re Morris, No. 06-C-612, 2007 WL 1246431 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 30, 2007). One court also noted that in its "careful analysis" of § 506(a) in Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953 (1997), the Supreme Court "never suggested that § 506(a) defines `secured' or that a claim is unsecured for purposes of Chapter 13 plan confirmation without § 506."