IN RE: SHARENNE L. TUCKER, SHARENNE L. TUCKER v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC. - Articles

All Content

IN RE: SHARENNE L. TUCKER, SHARENNE L. TUCKER v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC.

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Mar 30, 2026

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Cynthia A. Jeffrey, KEITH D. WEINER & ASSOCIATES CO., L.P.A., Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: Charles J. Van Ness, VAN NESS LAW, Mayfield Heights, Ohio, for Appellee.

Judge(s): BAUKNIGHT, Chief Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge; APPLEBAUM and GREGG, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges

Court Appealed: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland

JOHN T. GREGG, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Days after receiving a discharge in chapter 7, Sharenne L. Tucker, the debtor-appellee (the “Debtor”), commenced a chapter 13 case. In her debt repayment plan, the Debtor proposed to keep her vehicle that was subject to the lien of Santander Consumer USA Inc., the secured creditor-appellant (“Santander”). Section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) of the Bankruptcy Code1 provides that unless a secured creditor accepts the plan, the secured creditor is entitled to retain its lien “until the earlier of . . . the payment of the underlying debt determined under nonbankruptcy law; or . . . discharge under section 1328.” Because the Debtor was proposing to modify the contract rate of interest and section 1328(f) rendered her ineligible for a chapter 13 discharge, she could not technically satisfy section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I). She therefore proposed a creative alternative: Santander would retain its lien until the completion of all plan payments, not the entry of the chapter 13 discharge. Santander objected. It contended that the Debtor’s plan contravened section 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) by, in effect, rewriting the statute to include a provision found nowhere in its text. Without its acceptance, Santander argued, the Debtor’s plan could not be confirmed as a matter of law. The bankruptcy court overruled Santander’s objection and confirmed the plan. Santander appealed. Applying the plain meaning of the statute, we REVERSE and REMAND to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings.

Attachments: