Mortgage Loan Modification Does Not Alter Lien Priority

By Scott F. Waterman, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Reading)

Modifying a first mortgage is one of the most common loss mitigation tools available to bring a loan current to prevent foreclosure. In this case the first mortgage was modified twice by capitalizing the unpaid interest, reducing the interest rate, and reducing the monthly payments from $2,048 to $1,693 and transforming the loan from being in default to one that was deemed current. Fraction v. Jacklily, LLC (In re Fraction), No. 19-121 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2020)(per Frank, J).

This issue arose in bankruptcy because when the case was filed the first mortgage lien exceeded the fair market value of the real estate rendering the second mortgage lender’s secured claim valued at zero. The debtors sought to avoid the second mortgage in full as it was wholly unsecured, under 11 U.S.C. §506 (a) and (d). See also In re McDonald, 205 F.3d 606 (3rd Cir. 2000), which states that in a chapter 13 bankruptcy junior liens that are unsupported by any equity in a property can be stripped off and discharged.

The second mortgage lender defended arguing that the bankruptcy court should apply the Equitable Subordination Doctrine to reorder the priority of its mortgage over the modified residential mortgage, claiming that it was prejudiced when the first lender modified its mortgage to make the debtors current.

In Pennsylvania, liens against real property generally have priority over each other on whichever lien was recorded first. See 42 Pa.C.S.§ 8141. Mortgage priority is not limited to the principal balance of the loan that the mortgage secures. In addition, certain advances made by the mortgagee for the purpose of protecting the mortgage’s secured position along with unpaid interest are secured with the same priority as the loan principal.

Recently in Hamilton v. Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, 614 B.R. 48 (E.D. Pa. 2020), the United States District Court declined to adopt either § 7.3 of the Restatement (Third) of Property or the “Equitable Subordination Doctrine” outside of bankruptcy.

In Fraction, Bankruptcy Judge Eric L. Frank refused to sidestep the issue and addressed it head on, by holding that the Equitable Subordination Doctrine is inapplicable because the loan modifications did not prejudice the second lender. Specifically, he found that the modifications did not add “new debt”, i.e. they did not create new liabilities for the first time. The loan modifications merely recapitalized interest and costs that were already owed and secured under the original Note. Even accounting for the increased principal added to the balance of the Note, both loan modifications had the effect of reducing that amount of Debtors’ indebtedness under the first mortgage over time. Finally, the Court concluded that the loan modification were not required to be recorded as they did not create “new interest” in Property. As a consequence the Court granted summary judgment for the debtors holding that the second lender secured claim was valued at zero.


watermanScott F. Waterman, Esq. graduated from Tufts University in 1991 with a dual major in history and political science. He received his J.D. from Temple University School of Law in 1994. He is a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Trustee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and his office is located in Reading, Pennsylvania. Previously, he had his own private law practice focusing on consumer bankruptcy and commercial collection matters. Mr. Waterman is a former Chair of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Bankruptcy Conference and is a Fellow of the American College of Bankruptcy. He is a member of the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees and the Berks County Bar Association. Mr. Waterman volunteers his time as a current board member of the Consumer Bankruptcy Assistance Project which provides free legal assistance to indigent bankruptcy clients. In 2014 Mr. Waterman was appointed to be a member of the Local Rules Advisory Committee of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in helping to draft new and updated local bankruptcy rules. That same year he served on the Bankruptcy Judge Merit Selection Committee for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to which he was appointed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Mr. Waterman has two sons and enjoys sailing, playing softball and watching baseball. He spends his free time driving his kids back and forth to their various sporting activities.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

June 5, 2022
Bankruptcy has been the focus of the Boleman Law Firm’s 30+ year history, but my law partners and I believed it was important for our firm’s long-term health to add a new practice area that would be complimentary to bankruptcy. Even though we were filing almost 250 new Chapter 7 and 13 cases every month before the pandemic, most of...
December 19, 2021
Bankruptcy lawyers regularly evaluate the dischargeability of taxes when deciding when to file a client’s bankruptcy case. At base, the 3 year rule, the 2 year rule, and the 240 day rule routinely drive timing of a bankruptcy. But as we approach the end of the tax year, a client’s current year tax situation becomes another moving part in the...
January 6, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo, OH) Click here for Part 1 of 6 Click here for Part 3 of 6 Click here for Part 4 of 6 Click here for Part 5 of 6 Click here for Part 6 . . . It looks like you are not signed in...
November 17, 2019
By Alexander E. Schmidt, Law Clerk to the Honorable John P. Gustafson (Toledo, OH) As any attorney with an eye for case law can tell you, circuit-level opinions that decide matters of first impression deserve extra attention from practitioners. Not only do these opinions oftentimes illuminate the dark corners of the law, they can also raise or provide answers to...
March 21, 2021
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) No matter how many hoops the client dutifully jumped through, without adequate inquiry and communication, the bankruptcy attorney was slammed for unbundling his services. The representation agreement at issue excluded representation in any adversary proceeding filed, as do most such agreements, I imagine. The client initialed every paragraph of the 19-paged representation agreement,...
August 13, 2023
In the fall of 2021, Michael McCormick provided subscribers with an EXCELLENT, expository, seven-part outline on mortgage escrow.   This information is just as relevant today as when we first published it with one important update . . . When the next escrow analysis is performed and the servicer has received less than 12 payments of escrow (and often zero, as is often the case after the borrower received a forbearance during the COVID pandemic), the escrow balance will be far less than anticipated!!
October 6, 2019
By Mike Fitzgerald It has been almost one full year since I retired as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee in Seattle. I am happy to report that my family and I are enjoying ourselves immensely. As retirement grows more comfortable, I find myself looking back with mostly very fond memories at the nineteen years I served as a Trustee, as...
June 14, 2020
By Anthony J. Gomez, CPA, former extern to the Honorable John P. Gustafson, Northern District of Ohio at Toledo I. Cramdown Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(5)(B) Section 1325(a) sets forth the requirements for a court to confirm a chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. In respect to each secured claim provided for in a plan, 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(5) provides the following three...
Academy Circle Logo Final
January 16, 2022
There is no special language/verbiage. Keep is simple. Stick to one issue per NOE. Pertinent loan/debtor information – “name, rank, and serial number” Called bank twice. Tried to get borrower reviewed for FHA Recovery Mod. Both times I was essentially told that the loan was “too many months delinquent” to be reviewed for FHA Recovery Mod. I was also told...
July 14, 2019
By Beverly M. Burden, Standing Chapter 13 Trustee (Lexington, KY) An unscheduled creditor without notice of the bankruptcy case was denied an extension of time to file a proof of claim pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c)(6)(A) in a recent opinion from the Eastern District of Kentucky. In the case of In re Fryman,1 the debtor did not include creditor Kentucky...

Looking to Become a Member? offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.


These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: