Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11373/USCOURTS-ca11-14-11373-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-11373

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 3:14-cv-00200-BJD; 3:13-bkc-00346-PMG

In re: PHALLY LANG,

 Debtor.

___________________________________________________

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, 

f.k.a. Bank of New York,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

PHALLY LANG, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(October 15, 2015)

USCA11 Case: 14-11373 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

In Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Lang (In re Lang), 580 F. App’x 890 (11th Cir. 

2014), this Court affirmed the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s 

order voiding a wholly unsecured second priority lien on residential property 

owned by a Chapter 7 debtor. In doing so, the panel relied on existing precedent in 

McNeal v. GMAC Morg., LLC (In re McNeal), 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012), 

and in Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 862 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 

1989), in which this Court concluded that an allowed claim that was wholly 

unsecured was voidable under section 506(d). 

The Supreme Court has now granted certiorari, vacated our judgment, and 

remanded the case to us for further consideration in the light of its decision in Bank 

of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 135 S.Ct. 1995 (2015). 

In Caulkett, the Supreme Court concluded expressly that “a debtor in a 

Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may not void a junior mortgage lien under § 

506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of 

USCA11 Case: 14-11373 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 2 of 3
3

the collateral.” Id. (emphasis added). As a result, this Court’s decisions in 

McNeal and in Folendore are no longer good law. See Waits v. Bank of Am., N.A. 

(In re Waits), No. 14-11408, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 12311, at *3 (11th Cir. July 

16, 2015). 

Accordingly, we deny Appellant’s motion for summary reversal, vacate the 

district court’s judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent 

with Caulkett and with this opinion. 

VACATED AND REMANDED.

USCA11 Case: 14-11373 Date Filed: 10/15/2015 Page: 3 of 3