Court Nixes Cram Downs But Exceptions Remain.(mortgages in bankruptcies)

Attorneys Ben-Ezra and Perlin take lenders on a tour of the Supreme Court's decisions that protect lenders from a "cram down" of mortgages in bankruptcy proceedings - and look at some of the exceptions that might allow a homeowner to obtain a "cram down."

The United States Supreme Court's decision in Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 113 S. Ct. 2106, 124 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1993), held that a Chapter 13 debtor may not modify (or "strip down") a partially secured home loan. This is a significant case for residential mortgage lenders because it carves out a significant exception to the general bankruptcy rule allowing debtors to modify secured debts. We have discussed Nobelman and some of the subsequent cases previously. However, a recent court of appeals decision compels us to revisit this subject.

To review, Section 1322(b)(2) of The Bankruptcy Code permits a Chapter 13 debtor's plan to modify the rights of holders of secured claims. That statute, however, includes an "anti-modification" provision that prohibits modification of claims "secured only by a security interest in ...debtor's principal residence." Clearly, the anti-modification provision prohibits modification of wholly secured claims. The question in Nobelman was whether it also prohibits modification of the under-secured portion of a partially secured claim.

In Nobelman, the debtors had borrowed $68,000 to purchase their home. Six years later they declared bankruptcy. The lender filed a claim with the bankruptcy court for $71,000, the amount then due. At the time of the bankruptcy, the debtors claimed that the value of the apartment had declined to a mere $23,000. Technically speaking, the lender's claim was "secured" only up to the value of the apartment, the sole collateral for the loan. The lender's claim was under-secured by $48,000. The debtors argued that to the extent the claim was under-secured, it was not protected by the anti-modification provision of Section 1322(b)(2).

The Supreme Court disagreed. It said that where a mortgage is only partially secured, Section 1322(b)(2) would nonetheless, exempt the entire loan from modification. Thus, the debtors were not permitted to modify the claim. In a concurring opinion, one justice explained that in enacting Section 1322, Congress intended to give residential mortgages favorable treatment. The goal was "to encourage the flow of capital into the home lending market." This goal was accomplished, at least in part, by disallowing modification of debt secured exclusively by a borrower's residence.

Two years ago, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals limited the reach of the anti-modification provision. In Tanner v. Firstplus Financial, Inc., 217 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2000), the court restricted the modification exemption to cases, like Nobelman, in which the mortgage remained partially secured. Tanner held that where a second mortgage is wholly unsecured (for example, if the amount due on a prior mortgage exceeds the value of the home), the debtor may modify the claim. By way of illustration, if under the Nobelman facts, there had been a second mortgage also secured by the debtor's apartment, that second mortgage would have been wholly unsecured ...