344 B.R. 829, 831 (Bankr.W.D.Ky.2006) ("Under BAPCPA, vehicles purchased within the 910 days preceding the filing of the petition may no longer be bifurcated into secured and unsecured claims, but rather must be treated as fully secured.”) (emphasis added); In re Fleming, 339 B.R. 716, 721 (Bankr.E.D.Mo.2006) (“In order to be confirmed, a Chapter 13 plan must provide one of three options to secured creditors” under § 1325(a)(5)) (emphasis added); In re Robinson, 338 B.R. 70, 73-74 (Bankr. W.D.Mo.2006) (noting that the parties do not dispute that the creditors of 910-claims "are entitled to secured claims for the total amount of their claims, regardless of the value of the respective vehicles, and the Debtor cannot bifurcate them.”); In re Scruggs, 342 B.R. 571, 575 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.2006) (<HOLDING>); In re Shaw, 341 B.R. 543, 544
holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim recognizing that the flush language of  1325a may be intended to that require certain secured claims are treated as fully secured regardless of the value of collateral but concluding even if that was the intent because the new language added to section 1325a ren ders entirely inapplicable for some creditors the only section section 506 that gives those creditors allowed secured claims it does not carry out such intent 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 a creditor cannot defeat a claim of preference merely by showing that the debt is fully secured on the petition date holding that a 910claim is fully secured and requires that interest be added to the payment to arrive at the present value of the claim