Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 420, 112 S.Ct. 773. Note that because the Supreme Court stated that lien stripping would not be permitted in chapter 7 with an “allowed claim,” the implication arises that if the claim becomes disallowed, the lien can be stripped under Section 506(d). 22 . Id. at 418, 112 S.Ct. 773 (stating that the “liens ride through” principle was established before the passage of the 1978 Act, and existed under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898). The Supreme Court acknowledged that liens ride through bankruptcy in several cases. See Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 6 S.Ct. 917, 29 L.Ed. 1004 (1886). Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U.S. 291, 111 S.Ct. 1825, 114 L.Ed.2d 337 (1991); Johnson v. Home State Bank, 501 U.S. 78, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991). 23 . In re Shandrew, 210 B.R. 829 (Bankr. E.D.Cal.1997) (<HOLDING>); accord In re Nevería, 194 B.R. 547 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an allowed wholly unsecured consensual junior lien may not be stripped off in a chapter 7 case (B) holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien can be avoided under nobelman (C) holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge (D) holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage on chapter 13 debtors residence could not be stripped down into an unsecured claim by debtors plan (E) holding that a socalled chapter 20 debtor may strip off a wholly unsecured junior lien
Output (English): holding that an allowed wholly unsecured consensual junior lien may not be stripped off in a chapter 7 case