In re Dunn

Plan proposing sale of property as cure for prepetition mortgage default did not impermissibly modify lender's rights.
Procedural posture: 
Debtors filed a motion to confirm their chapter 13 plan, and a creditor bank objected to plan confirmation on the ground that the proposed plan impermissibly modified its rights in violation of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(b)(2). The bank also filed a motion for adequate protection payments pending confirmation.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Dunn. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on January 09,2009, LexisNexis #0209-090