Secured Claims

In the previous post, I covered In re Trejos, 2007 WL 2391184 (Bankr. App. 9th Cir. July 30, 2007), in which the Ninth Circuit BAP first considered BAPCPA’s infamous “hanging paragraph.” The language in issue is found in Bankruptcy Code section 1325(a):

The Ninth Circuit BAP has spoken on the “hanging paragraph” issue, siding with consumer lenders. Ever since the enactment of BAPCPA, some have claimed that poor legislative drafting must be read as substantially liberalizing the treatment of certain consumer loans in chapter 13.

In re Trejos, 2007 WL 2391184 (Bankr. App. 9th Cir. July 30, 2007) interprets the following language which was added to Bankruptcy Code section 1325(a) but left “hanging” without inclusion in any of its subparagraphs:

Section 101(37) of the Bankruptcy Code defines “lien” as a “charge against or interest in property to secure payment of a debt . . . .” and section 101(51) defines “security interest” as a “lien created by an agreement.” Most of us who get hired to enforce homemade loan documents have encountered a promissory note or other contract that clearly contemplates the application of specific property to pay the debt in the event of a default, but which doesn’t exactly say “Joe grants a security interest to Bob.”