would be equal to the collateral’s 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 unds, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2925, 124 L.Ed.2d 676 (1993) (remanding for reconsideration in light of Nobelman v. American Sav. Bank, - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993)); In re Balbus, 933 F.2d 246, 252 (4th Cir.1991) (same); In re Case, 115 B.R. 666, 670 (9th Cir. BAP 1990) (<HOLDING>); In re Amette, 156 B.R. 366, 368
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 that second sentence of  506a precludes deduction of hypothetical costs of sale in valuing chapter 13 debt ors real property to be retained by debtor holding that second sentence of  506a precludes deduction of hypothetical costs of sale in valuing chapter 13 debtors real property to be retained by debt or 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