In re Heath’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 101 (Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005) · 11 U.S.C. § 1222 · 11 U.S.C. § 1225 · 11 U.S.C. § 1325 · 11 U.S.C. § 363 · 11 U.S.C. § 506 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Butner v. United States · Harmon v. United States · National Bank of Eastern Arkansas v. General Mills, Inc. · In Re Citrowske · Hanna Abbott Bank-Thedford v. A Hanna L
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Debtors argue that they can modify the secured claim under the plan, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1222 (b)(2), to remove the cross-collateralization from the lien. The Court finds the Debtors’ argument unpersuasive. Without question, § 1222(b)(2) authorizes the Debtor to “modify the rights of holders of secured claims” through the plan. 11 U.S.C. § 1222 (b)(2). However, that authorization is limited to modifications that comply with the confirmation requirements of § 1225. In re Kerwin-White, 109 B.R. 626, 629-30 (D.Vt.1990) (“Section 1222(b) is a general provision of Chapter 12 which merely states what plans may contain; it does not purport to override the specific limitations placed on it in § 1225(a)(5).”). That is, section 1222(b)(2) sets the boundaries of how a debtor may treat a secured claim in a Chapter 12 plan; section 1225(a)(5) sets out requirements for how a debtor must treat a secured claim in a Chapter 12 plan. The authority to modify a secured claim under § 1222(b)(2) does not supercede the lien-retention requirement of § 1225(a)(5)(B)®.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Chickosky“Indeed, the overwhelming majority of courts have refused to modify or alter the lien retained pursuant to § 1225(a)(5)(B)® in any way. See, e.g., In re Clark, 288 B.R. 237, 249-51 (Bankr.D.Kan.2003) (finding that where Bank previously had a lien on both real estate and personalty, and plan proposed for Bank to retain lien only on real estate, the “treatment of the Bank’s claim runs afoul of the lien retention requirement in § 1225(a)(5)(B).”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Chickosky
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.