not be liable for unsecured claims during or after the case, the rule is reversed with respect to secured claims. Thus, exempt property remains liable for all liens not avoidable under the avoiding powers contained in the Bankruptcy Code. Similarly, a bankruptcy discharge will not prevent the enforcement of valid liens as against exempt property. Federal bankruptcy cases likewise hold that a debtor’s right to an exemption “is available to the debtor only to the extent that he holds an interest in the property that is not subject to unavoidable liens.” First of America Bank v. Gaylor (In re Gaylor), 123 B.R. 236, 239 (Bankr. E.D.Mich.1991); see also Day v. Boteler (In re Boteler), 5 B.R. 408, 411 (Bankr. S.D.Ala.1980); Chandler Bank of Lyons v. Ray, 804 F.2d 577, 579 (10th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Because Debtor voluntarily granted Comerica a
holding that the discharge injunction under 11 usc  524 does not preclude a creditor with a valid lien from enforcing its security interest against exempt as well as nonexempt property holding that where a security agreement contained collateral other than collateral for which creditor advanced funds to debtor since it secured antecedent debts as well as new debt and the agreement provided that the security interest secured payment and performance of the debtors present and future debts to the creditor the creditor did not have a pmsi and the debtors could avoid the creditors lien on collateral claimed as exempt holding that property seized by a creditor prior to debtors bankruptcy was property of the estate even though creditor  the irs  held a secured interest  a tax lien  in the property holding that under 42 usc  407a social security benefits commingled with other nonexempt funds in a bank account remain exempt if the funds are reasonably traceable to social security income holding that pennsylvania law determined the rights of a hypothetical lien creditor under 11 usc  544a1