Related Keywords: 910 loans . 910 loans . car loans . cramdown . liens . reaffirmation .
The Supreme Court ruled in January 2011, that the Means Test Vehicle Ownership allowance is contingent on existence of loan or lease obligation. In other words, if you own a vehicle "free and clear" and are not making any payments, you cannot claim the ownership deduction. (Ransom v. FIA Card Services, __ U.S. ___ (S.Ct 2011 ) )
Before the Supreme Court settled the issue, lower courts were split on this question.
Note that lower court cases that deny the allowance often mention that debtors can claim a $200 extra operation deduction for vehicles over six years old with more than 75K miles (based on the IRS practice of doing the same).
Cases that deal with the effect of undersecured 2nd mortgages on plan payments and correct procedures to strip them.
Cases about the procedure required to strip liens on over-secured property.
Before the passage of BAPCPA, the Supreme Court in Till ruled that a bankruptcy court could and must reset the interest rate on contractual secured debts to an interest rate based on the prime rate, rather than the contract rate of interest.
That rule survives BAPCPA but there was some question of whether this rule was applicable to so-called "910 loans" (for cars acquired less than 910 days ago). Most courts say yes, Till applies to those loans.
Generally this practice is not allowed in Chapter 7 -- only in Chapter 13. The Supreme Court in Dewsnup v. Timm in 1992 prohibited the practice of using 506(d) to strip a partially secured lein. But a few rare cases, most notably the 11th Circuit, have recently held that Dewsnup does not apply to cases of wholly unsecured liens, and has held that prior precedent allowing elimination of such liens is still controlling precedent in the 11th circuit. .