A security interest, however, that is in property other than the debtor’s principal residence may be subject to modification. Thus, the issue in this case is whether the Byline loan is a “commercial loan” and subject to modification or whether the loan only includes Debtor’s primary residence. If this court uses the Petition Date as the proper time to determine the nature of the loan, the claim may not be modified under Section 1322(b)(2), while it may be modified if the loan origination date is controlling. A majority of courts have determined that the petition date is the appropriate date for determining whether the anti-modification provision of § 1322(b)(2) applies to a claim. In re Landry, 462 B.R. 317 (Bankr. D. Mas.2011), see also In re Benafel, 461 B.R. 581, (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Abdelgadir, 455 B.R. 896, (9th Cir. BAP
holding that a habeas petition filed more than 30 days after the effective date of the real id act cannot be transferred to the court of appeals as a petition for review for lack of jurisdiction holding that  1322b2 prohibits modification of the interest rate on the loan on the debtors principal residence holding that the determination of whether the debtor is using real property as his principal residence is made as of the petition date for the purposes of section 1322b2 holding that the determination of whether a counterclaim is compulsory is made as a matter of law holding that the right of the debtor to claim property as exempt is generally determined on the facts as they exist on the date of the filing of the petition