Bank of America v. Nasruddin Lakhani, No. 14-12749 (11th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-12749 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ___________________________ No. 14-12749 Non-Argument Calendar ___________________________ Docket No. 1:14-cv-00461-AT, Bkcy No. 13-bkc-72472-WLH In re: NASRUDDIN LAKHANI, Debtor. __________________________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NASRUDDIN LAKHANI, Defendant-Appellee. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia _______________________________ (November 19, 2014) Case: 14-12749 Date Filed: 11/19/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Bank of America, N.A. appeals the district court’s summary affirmance of the bankruptcy court’s order voiding a wholly unsecured second priority lien on residential property owned by a Chapter 7 debtor. The bankruptcy court granted Debtor’s request to “strip off” the unsecured junior lien, based on this Court’s binding precedent in McNeal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (In re McNeal), 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin. (In re Folendore), 862 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)). In McNeal, we concluded that 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. Bank of America acknowledges that this panel is bound by the Court’s decisions in McNeal and Folendore 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
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.
