and was valued at thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy five dollars to be paid at five and a quarter percent that value was never objected to the second note was a two thousand and sixteen toyota camry where twenty nine thousand five hundred seventy three dollars was as described and evolves claim number six the dinner couldn't afford both vehicles his plan retains the sierra and treats it under the plan  plan also surrenders the camry to evolve mr lucio bare ground forces a mate and span he works for a company called federal mobile and keep in the truck was the logical choice for him as he needed it for work and for personal and just a little bit of procedural history the bankruptcy court denied this detection evolve filed a motion for a new trial this motion was denied and judge mott from the western district of texas bankruptcy court lays out a very clear and concise explanation that the debtor's plan does not violate section thirteen twenty five eighty five of the bankruptcy code when it sought to retain the sierra in the plan and surrender to the  district court reversed a bankruptcy court decision concluding that pursuant to the fist circuits holding in ray williams the plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court is in permissible under thirteen twenty five a five because it allowed the de the plain language of eleven u s c thirteen twenty five eighty five of the bankruptcy code clearly states that the court can form a plan if with respect to each allowed secure claim provided for by the plan and it gives the debtor three options on how this can be handled first one is that there is a resolution where the debtor and the creditor can agree the second one is retained the collateral pain the creditor through the plan and third one is surrender the collateral to the creditor converting the remainder of the debt to and  debtor exercise its options under thirteen twenty five eighty five the debtor retained the sierra which had a balance of one thousand two hundred five dollars valuing it at thirteen thousand eight hundred seventy five dollars  by the way this value was not objected to in the case as i mentioned before and it was confirmed that way this was permissible under section thirteen twenty five a five b and with the other plane which was a camry under section thirteen twenty five a five c the debtor surrendered this vehicle backed we've all evolved and the district court of rely on the fifth circuit in ray williams this case is clearly distinguishable in ray williams it's different because the creditor made only one loan to the debtor thus only having one secured claim securing several items of collateral consisting of one loan they're the better side to keep some items from the list while surrendering others there was only one allowed secure claim in williams the circuit court in williams did not hold that the debtor must choose the same option under thirteen twenty five a five for two allowed secure claims which are the facts here as it was mentioned in the bankruptcy opinion in the case at hand that to hold otherwise would seem to run contrary to the plain language of the statute which allows the debtor to choose one option for each allowed secure claim involving its brief but had it been valued at an amount higher than what was owed than any unsecured deficiency from the toyota end or the us the third unsecured loan belonging to evolve could have secured itself and attached itself to the equity of the sierra the clarke case involves stripping a lien severing the bank's cross collateral lanes this is also not part of the same facts as the case that we have today again baird of course is not severing obligation this is from page eight of their brief to support this position evolve cites one case in re bernie from the bankruptcy court the district of alaska  this is a chapter seven case with cross collateralized clients if you've all takes the position of affectively transforming the loans into one obligation then why did evolve file three separate claims in the case one for the sierra one for the toyota and an unsecured personal loan of four thousand and seventy three dollars which appears as claim them for seven furthermore why were there two motions for relief chapter and the better step to thirteen case one for relief for the toyota and one asking for relief for the sierra this is evidence that involved wants to have its cake and eat it to evolve by its actions in debtors case by treating each a loud secured claim only bolsters the argument in favor of the debtor that the language in thirteen twenty five a five should be plainly read for decades and decades bankruptcy attorneys have practiced same way with regard to treating each allowed secured claimant thirteen twenty five a five because the language is clear it's not vague so clear in fact that that even involved three c's claim separately by following separate proof of claims separate motions for relief they didn't even mention or were concerned about a third unsecured claim for four thousand and seventy three dollars by the way if you valving is arguing that these claims are mutually exclusive each other and each claim is the sierra in the camry then why did they completely ignore the third claim that they had are they arguing that the claims are mutually exclusive  the reason that this is not mentioned is because you've always aware that cross cleverness nation exists and it exists when equity can be attached by other secured creditors subject to the cross collateral  payment with interest and not the collateral that the creditor of forecloses on the receiving a fraction of the debt amount at auction and settling for pennies on the dollar doesn't that would result in the equivalent of one no it doesn't because what we're talking about here under thirteen twenty five are our claims this is we're talking about  equivalent of one the the problem was that with that is we have claims and under thirteen twenty five a five it is very clear that we are talking about by the the creditor evolve they were treated different differently when motions for relief were filed in the case so everything was treated differently as far as the claims are concerned there's there's not an argument that there is clause comes into existence and function when there's equity on a vehicle from a claim the equity from the vehicle in the claim can it can be attached from other loans from other from other creditors from from that same creditor on to that loan if it's unsecured so the question is not there are two different animals claim the other animal is treating each allowed secure place so that's that's an issue that that we're dealing with today and and the the problem is they're being jumbled up that's correct then the the claim i guess that would be filed would be a a claim for the two thousand and eleven g m c sierra which is based on the contract if any other claims separate from that that can prove that can attach to the equity of the two thousand and eleven sierra if need be no it's not part of one claim there are two different so they go into bankruptcy that would all depend on what the court of on what the creditor would do and at that point that's a different situation because that because let's say let's say i mean i can't speak for the creditor but let's say what the creditor did and that would fall in line with williams what the creditor did at that point if they filed a claim for the for the sierra and had other collateral attached to that then that makes it one then that would make it one claim there is if the if you say that the that the camry was paid off in full outside of bankruptcy a a creditor does not have to release that lead many times they do good morning my name is chamber i'm here on behalf of all federal credit union the apple inc you both are a credit union is a member owned and federally insured credit union located in all paso texas it's clear from the questions that went before th understands the facts they are very straightforward evolve may two loans on the same day to the same debtor one loan was used to finance one vehicle and another loan was used to finance another vehicle as has been stipulated both loans were crossed collateralized meaning each vehicle secured both loans with just two vehicles and three there is to the debtor to the record would reflect the debtor this particular debtor who is one focus my discussion on three points first we believe in ray williams case is controlling and on point second that evolved had to loan to instead of just one as was discussed by the appellant is a distinction without a difference the proper focus under the sect under section thirteen twenty five a five the cram down or the provision that talks about treating secured creditors focuses on the treatment of the collateral and not how many claims the creditor h and third the effect of the bankruptcy court ruling was to impermissibly sever evolves cross collateral claims across collateral provisions what about  one and another hypothetical i was thinking about as you asked your question is this is a little interesting with two different vehicles financed by two different loans what if evolved at two different secured claim secured by a piece of real estate one piece of collateral just like in this case where there's two two cars that secure both quotes evolved as a loan a first lien secured by real estate and a second lien secured by real estate under the appellant's logic debtor has an option to treat each claim differently elect each claim differently so what is the result of that apparently the debtor to choose to surrender part of the real estate parcel it up and cram down the rest and that is clearly not what the statute contemplate not participating number two is what's called the cramdown statute it's similar to a chapter eleven where the debtor and the cram down the back refers to valuing the collateral  i mean that's not the same thing as what he's trying to here i think it is because there's two different claims in their argument that is based on the number of claims but your collateral in your hypothetical is a single piece of landed undivided unlike where you have two separate vehicles from the beginning yes i guess the point i was trying to make is from the credits the creditors point of view it's one group of collateral secures the client and we don't think that simply because it's part of it is cross collateralized it should be treated any differently williams apply williams focused on the treatment of the collateral under the statute the williams case to basically hung on the the different options that are available under the statute one option is surrender the surrender statute says clearly that you can only surrender to exercise a surrender option you have to surrender all of the collateral securing the cla that's the williams holding and and that's why williams did not permit the debtor to surrender some of the collateral and retain and cram down the rest that distinction that  holding is no different in our case what what we are what the debtor's trying to do here is surrender some of the collateral and retain some of the clout of the distinction between this case having two l cross collateral and williams having one you are saying that's not a difference it's corrupt because you have to look at each loan and each allowed secure claim not just the claim allowed secured claim contested under the statute they allowed secure claim is that debt and all the collateral that goes with it when refreshment memory is there a cage from another circuit that let you are advocating there is a case in the second circuit called in recurring which is in our brief that is different in that it is a chapter twelve case the chapter twelve statute is very similar all the clearly goes with it under the provisions to see if it meets the statute the statute being there's an option of the debtor can try to retain the property or the debtor can surrender the property which are very very specific collateral though the williams case it was a hodgepodge of collateral you have to surrender this year in the land what i said yes that's what we that's how we read the statute and we think that's perfectly reasonable though that the debtor is given two options we think those option should be strictly construed  williams based on the same her current based on district court decision williams looks at the language of the statute and like i said earlier it looks a lot the fact that under the surrender provision the surrender statute talks about the clock all of the collateral must be surrendered and they took that  well and i go back down as far as the options are mutually exclusive argument that williams hilt they looked at the the overall context of the statute decided the way it was written there basically options a b or c have to have to be complied with and they found those to be mutually exclusive you can't mix and match that better argue what makes a difference  separators or you are or was how they decided that the statute was mutually exclusive each section you couldn't combine the sections you couldn't surrender song and retain they i guess they they found it based on both reasons that as well as the fact that the way when you actually look at the options that are available they speak to treatment of all collateral cramdown section speaks of retaining all collateral thank you sir thank you any other questions forgot ninety percent of what i was going to say tha mr brewer talks about these of these different knowns loans being made contemporaneously that same time but they were done at different times the first one was done for the two thousand and eleven c r the other one was done for the but make sure then one yes but what we're talking about are claims and these are claims there is a claim and and in the record there are three different claims in the schedules in the bankruptcy schedules there is one surrendered their collateral back to to the pre based on the claim and thirteen twenty five eighty five needs to be read plainly it says each allowed security claim each allowed secure claim means the claims the proof of  attach like i said before if the if the g m c sierra if thirty thousand dollars was owed on the sierra and this year was worth ten thousand dollars there's twenty thousand dollars of equity the sierra has if there's any other claims that are filed that are unsecured such as this this toyota that was surrendered or or the the third claim which is a personal loan those claims can attach to the equity as i said before these are two different animals that were discussed we're discussing a clause across clobbers issue clause and thirteen twenty five a five which allows each allowed secured claim to be to be treated this was a this was a loan that was refinanced from another credit union more than one hundred ten days ago therefore you can use this cram down statute in order to only have to pay the value with interest and then the rest would be unsecured that that's the that's the situation that we have here but had it been different and had the had the two thousand and eleven sierra had e then that's when the cross collateral efficient clause comes into effect to attach itself to that equity so that the debtor would have to pay more based on the actual value of that sierra this is this is this is where the c equity doesn't matter if we did it didn't matter with the two thousand and sixteen sierra because that's true but the but that does it at that doesn't matter with regard to the to the toyota because because with the toyota the the rule of cram down did didn't matter because that that toyota was purchased with a nine hundred ten days and was fully secure value didn't matter with the toyota anyway that was a fully secured claim that was not that could not be used under the five or six provision to cram down so really that that doesn't that argument as a matter