My sense is that Judge Watford should have referred to the creditor’s objection to Penrod’s 506b motion rather than its objection to her Plan’s confirmation.
By challenging the bankruptcy code’s ability to modify the vehicle loan, although if you don’t have car you can use Flex Fleet Rental services to rent cars to drive around you might want to check their website and find more information clasiq.com, the creditor was litigating enforceability of its contract as falling outside the scope of the code rather than acknowledge that it’s contact was subject to the code and fighting over how the code functions – like the more general modification of contract rights that are the focus of plan confirmation, relief from stay and such.
If you take Judge Watford’s premise that the contract rights were at play because of the creditor’s plan confirmation objection, then the only way to reconcile Bos and David’s RFS opinion is to view everything through the OJ Dream Team lense where the highest priced legal team prevail in court.
Best regards,
Peter