Bank of America v. Bartel James Vander Iest, Jr., No. 14-12406 (11th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-12406 Date Filed: 08/18/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-12406 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:14-cv-00099-RWS, Bkcy No. 13-bkc-23099-REB In Re: BARTEL JAMES VANDER IEST, JR., Debtor. __________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus BARTEL JAMES VANDER IEST, JR., Debtor - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (August 18, 2015) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Case: 14-12406 Date Filed: 08/18/2015 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellee, Bartel James Vander Iest, Jr., is a Chapter 7 debtor. He has two mortgages on his house secured by corresponding liens. The second lien, Bank of America’s, is completely “underwater.” Vander Iest obtained from the bankruptcy court an order “stripping off” Bank of America’s second lien as void under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d). The district court affirmed. Bank of America appealed. Bound by our prior precedent rule, we affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Bank of America’s petition for writ of certiorari, vacated this court’s judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings in light of Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015). Under Caulkett, § 506(d) does not permit the bankruptcy court to strip off the underwater second lien. Following the issuance of Caulkett, Bank of America filed a motion for summary reversal in this court. We deny that motion by separate order. We vacate the judgment of the district court and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and Caulkett. VACATED AND REMANDED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.