Filed: Aug. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 14-11353 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-11353 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:14-cv-00547-CAP; 13-bkc-72055-MHM In Re: ROBBIE THOMAS LEE, CHRISTINA REDIC LEE, Debtors. _ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBBIE THOMAS LEE, CHRISTINA REDIC LEE, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (August 21, 2014)
Summary: Case: 14-11353 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 14-11353 Non-Argument Calendar _ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:14-cv-00547-CAP; 13-bkc-72055-MHM In Re: ROBBIE THOMAS LEE, CHRISTINA REDIC LEE, Debtors. _ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ROBBIE THOMAS LEE, CHRISTINA REDIC LEE, Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _ (August 21, 2014) C..
More
Case: 14-11353 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11353
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:14-cv-00547-CAP; 13-bkc-72055-MHM
In Re: ROBBIE THOMAS LEE,
CHRISTINA REDIC LEE,
Debtors.
_______________________________________________________
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBBIE THOMAS LEE,
CHRISTINA REDIC LEE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(August 21, 2014)
Case: 14-11353 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 2 of 3
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bank of America, N.A., appeals from the district court’s affirmance of an
order from the bankruptcy court voiding Bank of America’s second-priority
mortgage lien on Robbie Lee and Christina Lee’s residential property in a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. The Lees’ property was subject to two
mortgage liens at the time they filed for bankruptcy. The outstanding debt on the
first-priority mortgage exceeded the fair market value of the property. Bank of
America held a second-priority mortgage, which had a value of around $23,000.
Because the debt on the first-priority mortgage exceeded the value of the property,
the Lees moved to “strip off,” or void in its entirety, the unsecured junior lien held
by Bank of America.
The bankruptcy court granted the Lees’ motion, concluding that binding
circuit precedent authorized the Lees to avoid Bank of America’s junior mortgage
lien under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d). See McNeal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (In re
McNeal),
735 F.3d 1263, 1265-66 (11th Cir. 2012); Folendore v. U.S. Small Bus.
Admin. (In re Folendore),
862 F.2d 1537, 1538-39 (11th Cir. 1989). Bank of
America appealed to the district court but moved for summary affirmance,
acknowledging that McNeal and Folendore were controlling. The district court
affirmed, and Bank of America now appeals to this Court.
2
Case: 14-11353 Date Filed: 08/21/2014 Page: 3 of 3
Bank of America maintains that the Supreme Court’s opinion in Dewsnup v.
Timm,
502 U.S. 410,
112 S. Ct. 773 (1992), makes clear that Folendore was
wrongly decided and should be overturned. Dewsnup held that a Chapter 7 debtor
could not “strip down,” or partially void, a creditor’s lien on real property where
the value of the property is less than what is due the
creditor. 502 U.S. at 417,
112
S. Ct. 773. According to Bank of America, after Dewsnup, the Eleventh Circuit
stands alone in holding that underwater junior liens may be “stripped off.”
However, in McNeal, we reaffirmed Folendore despite the holding in
Dewsnup.
McNeal, 735 F.3d at 1265-66. Accordingly, it remains the law of this
Circuit that a wholly unsecured junior lien—such as the one held here by Bank of
America—is voidable under § 506(d).
Id. Bank of America concedes that this
panel is bound by McNeal and Folendore to affirm the bankruptcy court’s order
but reserves the right to seek rehearing of the issue by the Court sitting en banc.
We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.
3