Case ID: f-appx_580/html/0865-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In re Amanda Laura Vander IEST, Debtor. Bank of America, NA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amanda Laura Vander Iest, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-12486
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Sept. 30, 2014.
    Craig Goldblatt, Danielle Spinelli, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Washington, DC, Bret Jacob Chaness, Rubin Lublin, LLC, Peachtree Corners, GA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Clarence Wingate Mims, Robert Jeffrey Field, Jeff Field & Associates, Scottdale, GA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before WILSON, WILLIAM PRYOR and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Bank of America, NA, appeals a judgment in favor of Amanda Laura Vander lest in her bankruptcy proceeding. The district court affirmed summarily the ruling of the bankruptcy court that a second priority lien held by Bank of America, which is subordinate to a first priority lien that exceeds the fair market value of Van-der Iest’s real property, is a wholly unsecured claim that Vander lest can “strip off’ in her voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. See 11 U.S.C. § 506(d); Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 862 F.2d 1537, 1538-39 (11th Cir.1989). We affirm.

Bank of America challenges the judgment on a ground that it admits is foreclosed by precedent. Bank of America argues that our holding in Folendore that a debtor can “strip off’ a wholly unsecured second priority lien was “squarely repudiated” by the Supreme Court in Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 112 S.Ct. 773, 116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992), but we held in In re McNeal, 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.2012), that Dewsnup did not overrule or abrogate our holding in Folendore. Id. at 1265-66. “Under our prior precedent rule, a panel cannot overrule a prior one’s holding even though convinced it is wrong.” United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1317-18 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc).

AFFIRMED.