fair market value. Under such circumstances, a court remains faithful to the dictates of § 506(a) by valuing the creditor’s interest in the collateral in light of the proposed post-bankruptcy reality: no foreclosure sale and economic benefit for the debtor derived from the collateral equal to or greater than its fair market value. Our approach allows the bankruptcy court, using its informed discretion and applying historic principles of equity, to adopt in each case the valuation method that is fairest given the prevailing circumstances. The [contrary] interpretation ... renders the second sentence of § 506(a) virtually meaningless.... 50 F.3d at 74-76 (second emphasis added). Finally, in Huntington Nat’l Bank v. Pees (In re McClurkin), 31 F.3d 401 (6th Cir.1994), decided the 1993) (<HOLDING>); In re Green, 151 B.R. 501 (Bankr.D.Minn.1993)
holding that motor vehicle to be retained by chapter 13 debtor should be valued at the price the debtor could get for it in a free and open market ie its fair market value holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debt or holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debtor holding that truck to be retained by chapter 13 debtor must be valued at replacement cost to debtor because foreclosure value fails to account for debtors proposed use of collateral holding parties negotiated price of vehicle was evidence of market value as represented