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

July 28, 2019
IRS has begun sending letters to virtual currency owners advising them to pay back taxes, file amended returns; part of agency’s larger efforts. On July 26th, the IRS announced that it has begun sending letters to taxpayers with virtual currency transactions that potentially failed to report income and pay the resulting tax from virtual currency transactions or did not report...
July 21, 2019
By John P. Gustafson, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Click here for Part 1 B. The Duty To Disclose Post-Petition Causes Of Action. 1. The Waldron Decision. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals considered the issue of whether or not a post-petition cause of action is . . . It looks like you are not...
May 8, 2022
My life in 1982 was in a bit of turmoil. I had recently gotten married and was working as in-house counsel for a regional furniture retailer. My position included a lot of collection work – beating up on debtors in state and bankruptcy courts. I was not unhappy but I was not comfortable with my work – it was clear...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
July 17, 2022
A referral fee by retained special counsel paid to debtor’s attorney violates the prohibition in § 504 in that the referral fee constitutes an unauthorized splitting of attorney’s fees. (Williamson) In re Davis, 638 B.R. 198 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. March 31, 2022) Case Summary Four years after Lisa Davis filed her Chapter 13 petition, she was involved in an auto...
October 27, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern, III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Part IV Two More Things Trustees Should Know About the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 Introduction Four bankruptcy-related bills were enacted during the 116th Congress and signed into law on August 23, 2019.1 The legislation affected both business and consumer cases. One bill, the Small Business Reorganization Act of...
April 4, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction We saw in Part 1 that the circuits are falling in line to follow the "snapshot" rule, fixing the debtor's exemption rights as of the date of the petition and finding support in both the Code and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. As the First Circuit put it . ....
August 25, 2019
Employers who provide paid family and medical leave to their employees might qualify for a credit that can reduce the taxes they owe. It’s called the employer credit for family and medical leave. Here are some facts about the credit to help employers find out if they might be able to claim it. To be eligible, an employer must: Have...
February 24, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee (Nashville) It was impermissible and contrary to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code for the bankruptcy clerk to enter an order which dismissed a Chapter 13 case based only upon the trustee’s certification that the debtor did not make a timely first payment. (Duncan). No...
October 3, 2021
By Jay Fleischman, Managing Attorney at Money Wise Law (Los Angeles, CA) When the world was forced to adjust to new routines in March 2020 due to the global pandemic, I was instantly struck by how little my professional life changed. I’d worked remotely for over a decade, and my systems and procedures didn’t change. Sadly, the same couldn’t be...
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
December 11, 2022
A Chapter 13 plan can be confirmed to pay a 100% dividend to unsecured creditors while maintaining payments to a student loan creditor as a long-term debt (which will not satisfy the student loan in the commitment period) without committing all available disposable income. (Mullin) In re Victoria Florita Durand-Day, 2022 WL 14938726 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. October 26, 2022) Case...