Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1421_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 9

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

off  the  entire  junior  lien.  Given  the  constantly  shifting
value of real property, this reading could lead to arbitrary
results.  To  be  sure,  the  Code  engages  in  line-drawing 
elsewhere, and sometimes a dollar’s difference will have a 
significant  impact  on  bankruptcy  proceedings.  See,  e.g., 
§707(b)(2)(A)(i)  (presumption  of  abuse  of  provisions  of 
Chapter 7 triggered if debtor’s projected disposable income
over the next five years is $12,475).  But these lines were 
set by Congress, not this Court.  There is scant support for
the  view  that  §506(d)  applies  differently  depending  on
whether a lien was partially or wholly underwater.  Even 
if Dewsnup were deemed not to reflect the correct meaning
of §506(d), the debtors’ solution would not either. 

* 

* 

* 
The  reasoning  of  Dewsnup  dictates  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  the
collateral.  The debtors here have not asked us to overrule 
Dewsnup, and we decline to adopt the artificial distinction
they propose instead.  We therefore reverse the judgments
of  the  Court  of  Appeals  and  remand  the  cases  for  further
proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.