the notion that eligibility is to be determined by looking solely at the debtor’s schedules. Id. Certainly this Court starts its eligibility analysis by reviewing a debtor’s schedules. However, the Court will also consider filed proofs of claim and other evidence. In re Salazar, 348 B.R. 559, 563 (Bankr.D.Colo.2006). Where, as is the case here, the eligibility issue is not raised early in the case but is raised as an objection to plan confirmation, the Court will not ignore the valuation evidence produced at hearing in favor of a simple review of the schedules. Other courts follow reasoning similar to that of Blackwell. These courts argue that consistency mandates the application of section 1322(b)(2) to the eligibility analysis. See In re Munoz, 428 B.R. 516, 519 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.2010) (<HOLDING>); In re Smith, 419 B.R. 826, 832
holding that secured creditor was entitled to relief from the stay because the debtors proposed plan had no reasonable prospect of confirmation as a result of its improper classification scheme holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt holding that the words allowed secured claim in  506d refer to a claim that is secured by a lien and allowed under  502 holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim holding that liens partially secured by the debtors principle residence should be treated as secured for both confirmation and eligibility because it is more consistent and more appropriate to treat debts the same for both purposes