Rake v. Wade, 508 U.S. 464, 2 (1993)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Cite as: 508 U. S. 464 (1993)

Opinion of the Court

the parties have acknowledged that such interest accrues from the petition date until a plan is confirmed. Section 1322(b)(5) does not operate to the exclusion of § 506(b). While it authorizes a plan to provide for payments on arrearages to effectuate a cure after the plan's effective date, it does not dictate the cure's terms. Specifically, it gives no indication that the arrearages cured under the plan may not include interest otherwise available under § 506(b). This construction of the provisions gives effect to both. Pp. 470-472. (c) Wade is also entitled to postconfirmation interest under § 1325(a) (5). There is no support for petitioners' claim that § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) applies only to secured claims that have been modified by a Chapter 13 plan and thus does not apply to home mortgages which, under § 1322(b), are exempt from modification. The plans essentially split each of Wade's claims into two claims—the underlying debt and the arrearages. While payments on the underlying debt were simply "maintained," each plan treated the arrearages as a distinct claim to be paid off within the life of the plan pursuant to its repayment schedule. Thus, the arrear-ages, which are part of Wade's home mortgage claims, were "provided for" by the plans, and he is entitled to interest under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). Other provisions of Chapter 13 containing the phrase "provided for by the plan" make clear that petitioners' plans provided for Wade's claims. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371. Pp. 472-475.

968 F. 2d 1036, affirmed.

Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

David A. Carpenter argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was J. Edwin Poston.

Lawrence A. G. Johnson argued the cause and filed a brief for respondent.

Ronald J. Mann argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Bryson, Assistant Attorney General Gerson, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, and Alfred J. T. Byrne.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case requires us to decide whether Chapter 13 debtors who cure a default on an oversecured home mortgage

465

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007