Bank of America, N.A. v. Dayo Bello


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Bank of America, N.A.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Download PDF
Case: 14-10062 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10062 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02519-WSD, 13-bkc-60610-JRS DAYO BELLO, Debtor, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DAYO BELLO, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (April 17, 2014) Case: 14-10062 Date Filed: 04/17/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Before PRYOR, MARTIN, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Bank of America, N.A. appeals the district court’s affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order voiding a wholly unsecured second priority lien on residential property owned by a Chapter 7 debtor. The issue on appeal is whether a Chapter 7 debtor is allowed to “strip off” a second priority lien on his home, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d), when the first priority lien exceeds the value of the property. We addressed recently this issue and concluded that a wholly unsecured junior lien -- such as the one held here by Bank of America -- is voidable under section 506(d). See McNeal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (In re McNeal), 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012). Bank of America acknowledges that this panel is bound by the Court’s decision in McNeal, but reserves the right to seek reconsideration of the issue by the en banc Court. Cf. United States v. Smith, 122 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Under the prior panel precedent rule, we are bound by earlier panel holdings . . . unless and until they are overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court.”). AFFIRMED. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?