Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1421_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2014 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

BANK OF AMERICA, N. A. v. CAULKETT 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 13–1421.  Argued March 24, 2015—Decided June 1, 2015* 

Respondent  debtors  each  filed  for  Chapter  7  bankruptcy,  and  each 
owned a house encumbered with a senior mortgage lien and a junior 
mortgage  lien,  the  latter  held  by  petitioner  bank.    Because  the 
amount  owed  on  each  senior  mortgage  is  greater  than  each  house’s
current market value, the bank would receive nothing if the proper-
ties were sold today.  The junior mortgage liens were thus wholly un-
derwater.  The debtors sought to void their junior mortgage liens un-
der §506 of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides, “To the extent that 
a  lien  secures  a  claim  against  the  debtor  that  is  not  an  allowed  se-
cured claim, such lien is void.”  11 U. S. C. §506(d).  In each case, the 
Bankruptcy  Court  granted  the  motion,  and  both  the  District  Court
and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 

Held: 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 if the credi-
tor’s  claim  is  both  secured  by  a  lien  and  allowed  under  §502  of  the
Bankruptcy Code.  Pp. 2–7.

(a) The  debtors  here  prevail  only  if  the  bank’s  claims  are  “not  . . .
allowed secured claim[s].”  The parties do not dispute that the bank’s 
claims are “allowed” under the Code.  Instead, the debtors argue that
the  bank’s  claims  are  not  “secured”  because  §506(a)(1)  provides  that
“[a]n allowed claim . . . is a secured claim to the extent of the value of
such creditor’s interest in . . . such property” and “an unsecured claim 
to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest . . . is less than 
the amount of such allowed claim.”  Because the value of the bank’s 

—————— 

* Together  with  No.  14–163,  Bank  of  America,  N. A.  v.  Toledo-

Cardona, also on certiorari to the same court.