In re Garner, 399 B.R. 267, 273 (Bankr. D. Utah 2009) (Thurman) (CitingIn re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006), and distinguishing Wachovia Dealer Services v. Jones (In re Jones), 530 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir. 2008), car lender’s silence with respect to cram down of 910-day PMSI car claim does not constitute acceptance
of plan; cram down plan cannot be confirmed notwithstanding absence of objection. “[T]he Court has an independent duty to review the Plan to ensure that it complies with the requirements of § 1325(a), including the anti-bifurcation provision of the hanging paragraph. . . . There may be instances where a creditor’s silence
constitutes acceptance of some matters under the Bankruptcy Code. The Court, however, is of the opinion that bifurcation of 910-day vehicle claims, as the Debtors propose here, is not one of those instances.”).
See Also:  Bankruptcy Lawyers Boston