25, 2007. Green Tree states generally, “The facts of this case are simple and uncontested.” Appellant’s Brief at 2. The only evidence presented to the bankruptcy court was the testimony of Ms. Coleman. Coleman at 911. Ms. Coleman testified that she and her husband own the land on which the manufactured home sits. She testified that the wheels had been taken off and bricks put underneath, but that there was no foundation and nothing to secure the home to the land. She testi fied that the home is only secured to the land by “standard tie downs,” which she said are “basically poles that they hammer into the ground.” Tr. at 29. She testified that in order to move the home, one would only need to “get a truck, come out there, jack it up, put the wheels back on it kr.W.D.La. Oct. 23, 2007) (<HOLDING>); HSBC v. Lunger (In re Lunger), 370 B.R. 649
holding that the definition of debtors principal residence in 11 usc  10113aa protects holder of secured claim in a mobile home that is debtors principal residence from modification under 11 usc  1322b holding that a lien on the debtors mobile home which was the debt ors principal residence as defined by 11 usc  10113aa was not subject to modi fication under 11 usc  1322b holding that because the definition of debtors principal residence in 11 usc  10113a includes incidental property a secured interest in incidental property cannot be modified under 11 usc  1322b holding that the addition of a definition of debtors principal residence in 11 usc  10113aa did not change the scope of the 11 usc  1322b antimodification provision and  1322b remains applicable only to real property holding that the definition of debtors principal residence in 11 usc  10113aa does not operate to extend the antimodification provision of 11 usc  1322b to structures that are not real property