“Pursuant to section 1327(a) and consistent with Espinosa, Wells Fargo is bound by the terms of the 6MP, even though the 6MP violates the anti-modification provision of section 1322(b)(2). In re Passavant, 444 B.R. 378, 385 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2010) (relying on section 1327(a) and Espinosa in granting a motion to deem post-petition mortgage obligations current, “even if the banks were correct that the provisions of the Plan . . . violated the Code [i.e., sections 1322(b)(2) and 1328(a)(1)]). Wells Fargo is deemed to have been paid all post-petition mortgage payments provided for in, first, the 10AP and, later, the 6MP. In other words, the post-petition delinquency of $4,810.37 is unenforceable against the Debtor. “Upon satisfaction of the plan and completion of the plan’s terms, the debtor is discharged of his or her debts and, in theory, faces a future of solvency.” Case Number: 13-25698 Judge Name: EPK Case Name: CORALEE EDWARDS, Sign Date: 05/22/2019 Cite: 603 B.R. 516. Judge Kimball is a bankruptcy judge in Palm Beach County Florida.
Add a header to begin generating the table of contents