that Chapter Thirteen plans may “modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(2) (emphasis added). Defendants concede that plaintiffs’ claims are secured by liens on their principal residences. Therefore, the key issue is whether those liens constitute “security interests” for purposes of the antimodification provision of § 1322(b)(2). The Bankr ich.1992) (finding antimodification provision of § 1322(b)(2) inapplicable because creditor’s interest in the principal residence of the debtor was a “lien,” rather than a “security interest,” based on the fact that it arose nonconsensually under state tax act); In re Venable, 48 B.R. 853, 856 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Mitchell, 39 B.R. 696, 700
holding modifiable a mechanics hen on debtors principal residence because it was a statutory hen 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 citys tax hen on debtors principal residence was modifiable despite  1322b2 because not consensual and thus not a security interest holding that  1322b2 prohibits modification of the interest rate on the loan on the debtors principal residence holding alternatively that rights of undersecured claimant could be modified notwithstanding  1322b2 because mortgagees security interest which attached to appliances machinery furniture and equipment whether fixtures or not was not secured only by a security interest in real property