In Re Wofford, 449 B.R. 362

Chapter 13 debtors proposed a plan confirming mortgage treatment, with direct payment to Bank of New York Mellon and a 7% interest rate for their Osceola home.
Bank of America, N.A. seeks court approval of a September 11, 2010 mortgage modification that allegedly changes the balance and interest schedule, but the creditor on the modification is unclear.
The modification references Jill Wofford (not necessarily the creditor) and appears not executed by Bank of America; the ownership history of the loan is unclear.
Bank of New York Mellon filed a claim with an arrearage and total debt amounts; no proof of claim was filed by Bank of America, N.A., and no transfer documentation is clearly provided.
The court evaluates whether the modification can be approved independently of plan confirmation, given 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2)’s anti-modification for a debtor’s principal residence and the creditor’s possible consent to modification.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should approve a standalone loan modification.	Woffords/Bank of America seek court approval.	Modification should be permissible if consensual or part of plan.	Denied; no standalone approval granted.
Whether 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) prevents modification of a home loan outside plan modification.	Anti-modification prevents altering the secured claim terms.	Consent may permit modification without altering plan terms.	Anti-modification remains; modification not approved absent creditor consent or plan incorporation.
Whether the modification can be treated as a reaffirmation and require approval.	Modification could be viewed as reaffirmation.	If treated as reaffirmation, it would still require court process.	Not treated as reaffirmation in this decision; no separate reaffirmation approval issued.
Whether creditor consent to modification could permit treatment within plan.	Creditor consent could enable plan modification.	Consent alone does not justify stand-alone approval.	creditor-consented modification could be incorporated into plan but not approved standalone.
What is the appropriate disposition given the plan terms and modification documents.	Modification aligns with plan adjustments if incorporated.	Divergence between plan terms and modification undermines approval.	Motion denied; cannot approve as presented.

In re Smith, 409 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2009) (secured creditor can consent to modification)
In re Flynn, 402 B.R. 437 (1st Cir. BAP 2009) (plan can be confirmed if secured creditor accepts)
In re Roderick, 425 B.R. 556 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2010) (mortgage modification akin to reaffirmation)