For purposes of this appeal, we treat Americredit and Hansel as the same, as there is no issue that the assignment affected or altered any rights. See Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Penrod filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy on March 2, 2007, which was 523 days after she bought the Taurus.
For purposes of this appeal, we treat Americredit and Hansel as the same, as there is no issue that the assignment affected or altered any rights. See Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Penrod filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy on March 2, 2007, which was 523 days after she bought the Taurus.
In re Brown , 339 B.R. 818, 821 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2006) ; see alsoIn re Trejos , 374 B.R. 210, 220 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007) (formally adopting this position); but seeIn re White , 352 B.R. 633, 643 (Bankr. E.D. La. 2006).
See, e.g., Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210, 220 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that "the bankruptcy court did not err in requiring that the Plan pay the full amount" of a 910 claim); In re Brooks, 344 B.R. 417, 422 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2006) ("[I]n order to confirm a Chapter 13 plan with a 910 claim, the plan must provide for full payment of the secured claim with interest calculated at the Till rate."); In re Johnson, 337 B.R. 269, 273 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 2006) (concluding that "[the hanging paragraph] prevents a debtor from paying less than the full contract amount if the debtor chooses to retain the vehicle"; thus, the plan must provide for either full payment of the 910 claim or surrender of the vehicle); In re Henry, 353 B.R. 261, 263 (Bankr. D. Or. 2006) (finding that an uncontested 910 claim is "therefore an 'allowed secured claim' for purposes of § 1325(a)(5) and the value of its claim, as of the effective date of the plan, must be paid over the life of the plan"); In re Turner, 349 B.R. 437, 442 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2006) ("[S]ecured creditors subject to
There is no issue that the assignment to Appellee affected or altered any rights. See Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Johnson filed a chapter 13 petition on November 21, 2013.
There is no issue that the assignment to Appellee affected or altered any rights. See Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). Johnson filed a chapter 13 petition on November 21, 2013.
The courts which have interpreted the hanging paragraph have concluded that application of the paragraph disallows debtors from bifurcating qualifying claims under Section 506. In re Trejos, 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007); Drive Financial Services, L.P. v. Jordan, 521 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2008); In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832 (7th Cir. 2007); In re Brei, 2007 WL 4104884 (Bankr.D.Ariz. 2007).
The HP is essentially an anti-bifurcation provision. If a secured creditor fits within its protection, the debtor must pay the creditor's claim in full no matter what the collateral's value, in order to retain collateral. Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In Re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210, 220-221 (9th Cir. BAP 2007) (Trejos II). The HP does not prevent cram-down of the interest rate, monthly payments or other contractual terms.
To fall within the protection of the Hanging Paragraph, the secured claim must meet the following conditions: See Wells Fargo Financial Acceptance v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez), 375 B.R. 535 (9th Cir. BAP 2007); Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). For a brief explanation of the concept of cramdown and its operation, see In re Sanders, No. 07-50783-C, 2007 WL 3047233 at *4-5 (Bankr.
To fall within the protection of the Hanging Paragraph, the secured claim must meet the following conditions: See Wells. Fargo Financial Acceptance v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez), 375 B.R. 535 (9th Cir. BAP 2007); Trejos v. VW Credit, Inc. (In re Trejos), 374 B.R. 210 (9th Cir. BAP 2007). For a brief explanation of the concept of cramdown and its operation, see In re Sanders, 377 B.R. at 843-45 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 2007).