Rejecting Drummond v. Welsh (In re Welsh), 465 B.R. 843 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2012) (Perris, Pappas, Hollowell), stay denied pending appeal of denial of confirmation of plan that would pay student loans directly in full when other unsecureds would receive de minimis payment and debtor would retain property in Scottsdale that is not necessary to reorganization. With respect to Welsh: “To allow a debtor to retain six over-encumbered vehicles, two of which were recreational vehicles, based upon a technical reading of Section 1325 turns the Congressional intent concerning the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (‘BAPCPA’) on its proverbial head. . . . [T]he decision in Welsh was wrongly decided. . . . In this case, the Court will follow the analysis proposed by the dissent. . . . [T]he Court [will] analyze[ ] the payment of the student loans and the retention of the Scottsdale lot, and the payment of the secured debt with respect to that lot, on the basis of whether the Debtor was proposing her plan in good faith. . . . [T]he Debtor’s payment of a de minim[i]s amount to her unsecured creditors as a result of her direct payment on her student loans and her retention of her Scottsdale lot reflected a lack of good faith on her part.”