[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-13556

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 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 4 
2

PER CURIAM:

This appeal concerns an order of the bankruptcy court permitting 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 the first lien 

exceeds the fair market value of the property, rendering the second lien, which

appellant Bank of America, N.A. holds, completely “underwater.” 

On November 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), the bankruptcy court granted Corrad’s motion on May 12, 

2014. Bank of America appealed that order to the district court, where it moved 

for a summary affirmance. The district court granted Bank of America’s motion

on July 21, 2014, and this appeal followed.

II. 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 4 
3

Inc., 680 F.3d 1298, 1310 (11th Cir. 2012). We review de novo the bankruptcy 

court’s legal conclusions. Id. 

III. ANALYSIS

Section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, 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 Administration, 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 an underwater lien. Id.

Three years after the Folendore decision, the Supreme Court issued its 

opinion in Dewsnup 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 declined to deviate 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 4 
4

secured mortgage lien and did not address a ‘strip off’ of a wholly unsecured lien.” 

Id. at 1265. Consequently, McNeal 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 affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-13556 Date Filed: 11/26/2014 Page: 4 of 4