Bank of America, N.A. v. Lisa Kay Evans, No. 14-12887 (11th Cir. 2015)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-12887 Date Filed: 09/02/2015 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-12887 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 3:14-cv-00054-TCB, Bkcy No. 13-bkc-12946-WHD In re: LISA KAY EVANS, a.k.a. LISA KAY HARBIN, Debtor. __________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LISA K. EVANS, a.k.a. Lisa Kay Harbin, Defendant - Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ________________________ (September 2, 2015) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, ANDERSON, and COX, Circuit Judges. Case: 14-12887 Date Filed: 09/02/2015 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Appellee, Lisa Evans, is a Chapter 7 debtor. She has two mortgages on her house with corresponding liens. The second lien, Bank of America’s, is completely “underwater.” Evans 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. After the Supreme Court granted Bank of America’s petition for writs of certiorari in two of our other cases presenting the same issue that this case presents, we entered an order staying this case pending the Supreme Court’s decision. In Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 575 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015), the Supreme Court reversed our precedents and held that § 506(d) does not allow the bankruptcy court to strip off completely unsecured liens. Caulkett is controlling in this case. We grant Bank of America’s motion to lift the stay of this case, but deny its simultaneously filed motion for summary reversal. 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.