Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1421_p8k0.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

objects  or  if,  in  the  case  of  an  objection,  the  Bankruptcy 
Court determines that the claim should be allowed under 
the Code.  §§502(a)–(b).  The parties agree that the Bank’s
claims  meet  this  requirement.    They  disagree,  however,
over  whether  the  Bank’s  claims  are  “secured”  within  the 
meaning of §506(d). 

The  Code  suggests  that  the  Bank’s  claims  are  not  se-
cured.  Section 506(a)(1) provides that “[a]n allowed claim
of a creditor secured by a lien on property . . . 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.”  (Emphasis added.)
In  other  words,  if  the  value  of  a  creditor’s  interest  in 
the property is zero—as is the case here—his claim cannot 
be  a  “secured  claim”  within  the  meaning  of  §506(a).  And 
given that these identical words are later used in the same
section  of  the  same  Act—§506(d)—one  would  think  this
“presents  a  classic  case  for  application  of  the  normal  rule 
of  statutory  construction  that  identical  words  used  in
different  parts  of  the  same  act  are  intended  to  have  the 
same meaning.”  Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U. S. 90, 
101  (2003)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    Under 
that  straightforward  reading  of  the  statute,  the  debtors
would be able to void the Bank’s claims. 

Unfortunately  for  the  debtors,  this  Court  has  already 
adopted  a  construction  of  the  term  “secured  claim”  in 
§506(d) that forecloses this textual analysis.  See Dewsnup 
v.  Timm,  502  U. S.  410  (1992).    In  Dewsnup,  the  Court 
confronted a situation in which a Chapter 7 debtor wanted
to  “ ‘strip  down’ ”—or  reduce—a  partially  underwater  lien 
under  §506(d)  to  the  value  of  the  collateral.    Id.,  at  412– 
413.  Specifically, she sought, under §506(d), to reduce her 
debt  of  approximately  $120,000  to  the  value of  the  collat-
eral securing her debt at that time ($39,000).  Id., at 413. 
Relying  on  the  statutory  definition  of  “ ‘allowed  secured