In re Kemmery, 516 B.R. 485

Debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition and proposed Plan to pay Auto Loan, Inc. in full at 5.25% interest.
Vehicle purchased within 910 days before filing; creditor holds a purchase-money security interest and filed a secured claim.
Creditor filed a proof of claim for $17,398 at 18.95% interest.
Debtor objected to the interest rate under Till and Taranto, arguing for prime-plus present value.
Creditor objected to confirmation asserting the 910-day claim should accrue higher interest at its contract rate.
Court held Till/Taranto control; 910-day claims cannot be stripped but accrue present value interest via prime-plus; 5.25% is the appropriate rate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicable interest rate for 910-day claim under Till Taranto	Kemmery argues Till applies and sets prime-plus interest	Auto Loan asserts 910-day claim should yield contract rate (18.95%)	Till controls; prime-plus rate applies
Effect of 910-day “hanging paragraph” on 506(a) strip down	Till/Taranto require present value; not applicable to stripping	Hanging paragraph prevents 506 strip down for 910-day claims	Hanging paragraph bars 506(a) stripping; present value still required for cram-down

Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (U.S. 2004) (establishes prime-plus present-value rate for secured claims in cram-downs)
In re Taranto, 365 B.R. 85 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2007) (extends Till to 910-day claims when plan modifies secured rights)
Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953 (U.S. 1997) (cram-down principles require present value of secured claims)
In re Sparks, 346 B.R. 767 (Bankr.S.D. Ohio 2006) (930-day considerations in 506(a) context)
Soards v. American Default Servicing, 344 B.R. 829 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2006) (Till/Taranto applicability to cram-down)