Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on the proper valuation date of property when the debtor attempts to strip off a wholly unsecured lien. Dean, 319 B.R. at 477. This Court is more persuaded by the cases that use the petition date as the appropriate date to value both the collateral and, necessarily, the first lienholder’s claim, for the purpose of determining whether any value over the first claim exists in the collateral to support the second lien. The Court’s independent review of relevant caselaw reveals that the majority of courts considering this issue have also settled on the petition date as the proper date for valuation in this and other contexts. See, e.g., Marsh v. U.S. Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev. (In re Marsh), 929 F.Supp.2d 852, 855 (N.D.Ill.2013); In re Gilpin, 479 B.R. 905, 908 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Levitt & Sons, LLC, 384 B.R. 630, 644 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the correct date to use when determining the controlling statute is date upon which the claim arose (B) holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act (C) holding the petition date is the appropriate date to value the collateral when the debtors intend to remain in the home (D) holding that the date of sale for an installment contract was the date of contract formation not the date of the last payment due (E) holding petition date is proper date to value assets for a hypothetical liquidation under 11 usc  547b
Output (English): holding that the date of the federal indictment not the date of the state arrest was the triggering date for the speedytrial act