determination of whether equity exists to support the second lien depends on the valuation of both the first secured claim and the collateral. Fairness and common sense require that both of these valuations be made as of the same date; otherwise, the comparison fails. Accordingly, cases where courts have considered the proper date of valuation for purposes of determining whether equity is available to support a junior lien are relevant to the Court’s consideration of this issue. The Debtors cite four cases in their submission, one of which is inapplicable and two of which actually support the Defendant’s position. One of the cases does not address the proper timing of the valuation of the first lienholder’s claim or of the collateral. In re Dolinak, 497 B.R. 15 (Bankr.D.N.H.2013)(<HOLDING>). Another holds that the proper date for
holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien can be avoided under nobelman holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage on chapter 13 debtors residence could not be stripped down into an unsecured claim by debtors plan holding that an allowed wholly unsecured consensual junior lien may not be stripped off in a chapter 7 case holding that a socalled chapter 20 debtor may strip off a wholly unsecured junior lien holding that a debtors right to strip off a wholly unsecured lien is conditioned on the debtors obtaining confirmation of and performing under a chapter 13 plan that meets all of the statutory requirements rather than on a debtors discharge