Bank of America, N.A. v. David B. Caulkett, No. 14-10803 (11th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 14-10803 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10803 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00078-GAP; 6:13-bk-05337-KSJ In Re: DAVID B. CAULKETT, Debtor. ________________________________________________________________ BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. Plaintiff-Appellant, versus DAVID B. CAULKETT Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (May 21, 2014) Case: 14-10803 Date Filed: 05/21/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Before MARCUS, PRYOR, 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) (citing Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 862 F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)). 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.