American General Finance, Inc. v. Dickerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “were we to decide this issue on a clean slate, we would not so hold”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Gte Corporation Gte · Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corp.

2. “However, were we to decide this issue on a clean slate, we would not so hold. We find persuasive the district court’s reasoning that providing “anti-modification” protection to junior mortgagees where the value of the mortgaged property exceeds the senior mortgagee’s claim by at least one cent, as prescribed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 , 113 S.Ct. 2106 , 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993), but denying that same protection to junior mortgagees who lack that penny of equity, places too much weight upon the valuation process. As we have noted “[valuation outside the actual market place is inherently inexact.” Rushton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 498 F.2d 88, 95 (5th Cir.1974). Given the unavoidable imprecision and uncertainty of the valuation process, we think that choosing to draw a bright line at this point is akin to attempting to draw a bright line in the fog. Moreover, we believe that Congress’s use of the phrase “a claim secured only by” instead of the term “secured claim” to describe those claims which could not be modified in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan supports the conclusion that the “anti-modification” protection of § 1322(b)(2) should extend to all claims secured solely by the debtor’s principal residence, not just those junior homestead mortgages where there is sufficient equity in the subject property to support both the entire senior and part of the junior homestead mortgages. See 11 U.S.C. § 1322 (b)(2); see als”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Smith

3. “were we to decide this issue on a clean slate, we would not hold so .... [djenying that same protection to junior mortgages who lack that penny of equity, places too much weight upon the valuation process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Pierce v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Utah (In Re Pierce)