In re Schayes, 483 B.R. 209

Debtors Daniel and Wendy Schayes are in the business of buying, developing, selling, and renting residential properties; they purchased the Berneil property in Paradise Valley, AZ in 2007.
Original financing required they live in the Berneil property as their principal residence for one year, which they did until Summer 2008.
In 2008 they relocated to Colorado for business opportunities; Berneil was vacant during that period.
January 2009 they moved back to Phoenix and lived at a different property; Berneil remained vacant for nearly three years.
February 2011 they moved back into Berneil and have resided there continuously since; they filed Chapter 11 on July 20, 2011.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Berneil qualifies as principal residence under § 1123(b)(5).	Schayes contend Berneil was an investment/rental target, not principal residence.	Bank argues occupancy since 2011 and petition-date facts show Berneil as principal residence.	Berneil is the debtor's principal residence on petition date; § 1123(b)(5) applies.
What date determines the debtor's principal residence for § 1123(b)(5).	Determination should reflect future plan and intent to rent; petition date not controlling.	Petition date is the appropriate moment to determine residence.	Petition date controls for determining principal residence.
Whether a multi-use or uncodified exception applies to § 1123(b)(5).	Property could have additional business use, negating principal residence.	There is no second 'only' in the statutory text; multi-use exception lacks support.	No uncodified multi-use exception; residence remains principal on petition date.

Scarborough, 461 F.3d 406 (3d Cir. 2006) (multi-unit dwelling: security interests may include non-residential uses; anti-modification hinges on debtor's principal residence)