IN RE: JEFFREY EUGENE THACKER
IN RE:
JEFFREY EUGENE THACKER
HELEN MARIE
THACKER
CASE
NO. 04-61964
DEBTORS
ORDER
This
case is submitted for decision (See
Document # 34) on objection of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, d/b/a
Homecomings Financial (“Homecomings Financial”) ( Documents # 15 & 18) to
confirmation of the debtors’ chapter 13 Plan (Document # 2) as amended
(Documents # 12, 16, & 20). Following
a hearing on April 21, 2005, counsel for Homecomings Financial supplemented the
record (Document # 39), and the debtors responded (Document # 41).
Homecomings
Financial objects to the debtors’ classification of it as a secured creditor
whose claim has no value, thus treating its secured claim as unsecured. The creditor asserts that by virtue of this
treatment these chapter 13 debtors are attempting to avoid its mortgage, which
admittedly was filed in the wrong county, using the so-called “strong-arm
powers” granted by 11 U.S.C. § 544, which Homecomings Financial argues are
available only to the trustee.
This
case concerns a consensual mortgage on the debtors’ principal residence. In Schedule A to the Petition, the debtors
valued the property at $80,000.
Homecomings Financial filed Proof of Claim # 3 in the amount of
$67,108.04.
The
issue of standing by chapter 13 debtors to avoid a mortgage has been addressed
recently by this court. Mark Anthony Roberts and Dawn Renee Roberts,
Case No. 04-10526, Memorandum Opinion entered January 4, 2005 (Document # 47),
Judge William S. Howard, U. S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of
Kentucky. In his opinion Judge Howard
quoted a case out of the Sixth Circuit which discussed the interplay of Section
522(h) and (g):
Thus, taken together
these provisions provide a debtor with the standing to avoid a transfer of
property under § 544 if four conditions are met: (1) the bankruptcy trustee
does not attempt to avoid the transfer; (2) the debtor could have exempted the
property; (3) the debtor did not conceal the property; and (4) the debtor did
not voluntarily transfer the property.
Trentman v. Meritech Mortgage
Serv. (In re Trentman), 278 B.R. 133, 135 (Bankr. N. D. Ohio
2002).
Clearly such is not the case here.
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the objection of Homecomings Financial to the debtors’
Plan as amended is sustained, without prejudice to the right of the chapter 13
trustee to seek to avoid the mortgage of Homecomings Financial if deemed
appropriate.
Copy to :
Charles M. Johnson, Esq.
Chris Carter, Esq.
John P. Brice, Esq.
Beverly M. Burden, Esq.