[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 14

- 13556 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s
. 5:14

- cv
- 00343

- TJC ; 6:13

- bk

- 14410

- KSJ

In Re : CELIA ELLA CORRAD , Debtor.

________________________________________________ __________________ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

versus
CELIA ELLA CORRAD , Defendants

- Appellee

.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

________________________ (November 26 , 2014)
Before JORDAN , JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR , Circuit Judges.

Case: 14-13556 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 1 of 42 PER CURIAM: This appeal concerns an order of the bankruptcy court permit ting a debtor to “strip off” an “ underwater ” second mortgage under § 506(d) of the Bankruptcy
Code

. I. BACKGROUND Appellee Celia E. Corrad is a Chapter 7 debtor

. She owns real property in
Yalaha , Florida that is encumbered by two mortgages. The balance of th e first lien
exceeds the fair market value of the property, rendering the second lien , which appel lant Bank of America, N.A. holds , completely “ underwater

. ”
On N ovember 26, 2013, Corrad moved the bankruptcy court to declare Bank
of America’s interest in her property to be unsecured and void under § 506 (d ) of the Bankruptcy Code. 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). Relying on In re McNeal , 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012), t he bankruptcy court granted Corrad’s motion on May 12,
2014

. B ank of America appealed that order to the district court , where it mo ved for a summary affirmance

. The district court granted Bank of America’s motion on July 21, 2014 , and this appeal followed

. I I
. STANDARD OF REVIEW When the district court affirms an order of the bankruptcy court, we review the bankruptcy court’s decision independently of the district court. In re TOUSA,

Case: 14-13556 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 2 of 43 Inc. , 680 F.3d 1298, 1310 (11th Cir. 2012). We review de novo the bankruptcy
court’ s legal conclusions. Id

. I I I. ANALYSIS Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code p rovides, in pertinent part, that “[t]o the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed
secured claim, such lien is void

. ” 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). In Folendore v. United
States Small Business A dministration , we interpreted the above statutory language
to hold that even an allowed claim can be deemed voidable if it is wholly unsecured. 862 F.2d 1537, 1538

- 40 (11th Cir. 1989). Thus, under Folendore , a
debtor can move a bankruptcy court to strip off a n underwater lien. Id. Three years after the Folendore decision , the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dewsnu p v. Timm , 502 U.S. 410 (1992), which Bank of America argues “squarely repudiated Folendore’s interpretation of section 506(d).” Bank of
America claims that “ Folendore [] could not have survived Dewsnup .” Unfortunately for Bank of America, we considered and rejected this same
argument in our 2012 McNeal decision . 735 F.3d at 1265

- 66

. There, although we acknowledged Dewsnup’s seeming disavowal of Folendore’s “plain language analysis” of § 506(d), we d eclined to de viate from that opinion because Dewsnup was “not ‘clearly on point , ’” as it “disallowed only a ‘strip down’ of a partially

Case: 14-13556 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 3 of 44 secured mortgage lien and did not address a ‘strip off’ of a wholly unsecured l ie n.”
Id. at 1265. Consequently, Mc Neal held that Folendore remained the controlling precedent within this Circuit. Id.
Under our prior precedent rule , we are bound by this Court’s prior decisions “unless and until [they are] overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme
Court.” United States v. Brown , 342 F.3d 1245, 1246 (11th Cir. 2003). Bank of America argues that Folendore was wrongly decided, but concedes that it and
McNeal remain binding precedent and control this case

. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court did not err by permitting Corrad to strip off Bank of America’s underwater lien, and the decision of the district court is therefore affirme d.
AFFIRMED. Case: 14-13556 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 4 of 4