In re Donnadio, 608 B.R. 507

Debtors bought a 2013 Buick Verano on Santander financing in March 2017 and filed Chapter 13 in July 2018 (within 910 days of purchase).
Debtors used Official Form 113 and treated Santander’s claim as a § 1325(a) “910 claim” in Plan Section 3.3, providing monthly payments but no explicit lien-retention language.
Santander objected to confirmation, arguing § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) requires the plan to “provide that” the creditor retains its lien until payment in full under nonbankruptcy law or discharge.
Bankruptcy court overruled the objection, holding a non‑bifurcated 910 claim’s lien is retained by operation of law and explicit plan language was unnecessary; debtors and trustee advanced policy and Rule 9009 arguments.
The Panel reversed: the plan did not satisfy § 1325(a)(5)(B) because it did not “provide that” lien retention, and adding a nonstandard lien‑retention provision in Section 8.1 is permissible under the Code and Rule 9009.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Chapter 13 plan treating a § 1325(a) 910 claim must affirmatively “provide that” the creditor retains its lien until payment under nonbankruptcy law or discharge	Santander: § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I) is unambiguous — plan must "provide that" lien retained until payment or discharge	Debtors/Trustee: Hanging paragraph makes § 1325(a)(5) inapplicable in the same way; lien retained by operation of law, so explicit language unnecessary	Reversed. Plan failed § 1325(a)(5)(B) because it did not "provide that" lien retained; confirmation over objection was erroneous
Whether including lien-retention language as a nonstandard provision in Official Form 113 violates Rule 9009	Santander: adding a Section 8.1 nonstandard clause to implement § 1325(a)(5)(B) is proper and necessary to conform the plan to the Code	Debtors: Rule 9009 and Official Form usage bar altering Section 3.3 of the national form plan	Held: Rule 9009 does not bar including a nonstandard lien-retention provision; § 1322(b)(11) and Rule 3015(c) permit appropriate nonstandard provisions

Shaw v. Aurgroup Fin. Credit Union, 552 F.3d 447 (6th Cir. 2009) (§ 1325(a) confirmation requirements are mandatory and a plan must satisfy one of § 1325(a)(5)’s options to treat secured claims)
Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2004) (present-value methodology for deferred payments under § 1325)
United States v. Ron Pair Ent., Inc., 489 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1989) (statutory interpretation starts and ends with plain text)
Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 135 S. Ct. 1686 (U.S. 2015) (orders overruling confirmation objections and confirming plans are final for appeal)
Nuvell Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Dean, 537 F.3d 1315 (11th Cir. 2008) (explaining the BAPCPA "hanging paragraph" prevents bifurcation of certain 910-day vehicle claims)
In re Corrin, 849 F.3d 653 (6th Cir. 2017) (reaffirming plain‑text statutory construction principles)