Santander Consumer USA, Inc. v. Phillip Jefferson Brown, 746 F.3d 1236

Santander appeals a district court affirmation of a bankruptcy court ruling overruling Santander's objection to Brown's Chapter 13 plan, which proposed surrender of Brown's RV to satisfy Santander’s claim.
The bankruptcy court valued the vehicle under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a)(2) replacement value, determining surrender would satisfy Santander’s secured claim.
Brown purchased a 2006 Keystone Challenger RV in 2007; Santander holds the loan and filed a secured claim for $36,587.53 at petition date.
At confirmation, the parties disputed valuation method: Brown urged replacement value under § 506(a)(2); Santander urged foreclosure value.
The bankruptcy court held replacement value applied, citing § 506(a)(2) and BAPCPA, and Brown's plan was confirmed.
The district court affirmed; Santander challenges applying § 506(a)(2) to a surrender under § 1325(a)(5)(C).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §506(a)(2) apply to valuation when surrender occurs under §1325(a)(5)(C)?	Brown: replacement value governs; leads to full satisfaction via surrender.	Santander: foreclosure value should govern; §506(a)(2) not triggered by surrender.	Yes; §506(a)(2) applies to surrender in §1325(a)(5)(C).

Associates Commercial Corp. v. Rash, 520 U.S. 953 (U.S. 1997) (foreclosure vs replacement value framework; predictive governance for valuation)
Nobelman v. Am. Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1993) (uses §506(a) for judicial valuation in plan confirmation)
Graupner, 537 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2008) (discusses the purpose of §1325(a)(*) and related valuation context)
Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (U.S. 1979) (banks cannot rely on state property rights when Bankruptcy Code dictates otherwise)
Raleigh v. Ill. Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 (U.S. 2000) (creditors' rights are subject to Bankruptcy Code)
T & B Scottdale Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 866 F.2d 1372 (11th Cir. 1989) (finality and merits-based review principles)