are separately governed by the confirmation requirements of [Section] 1325(a)(4).” Hill, 440 B.R. at 183. The application of “[c]on-trolling Ninth Circuit precedent” required that the creditor’s claim be treated as an unsecured claim for purposes of Section 1322. Id. “To remain true to the holding of Zimmer ... [the creditor’s] unsecured claim cannot logically be treated differently under [Section] 1325 than it is treated under [Section] 1322.” Id. This court agrees that “[a] creditor who [does] not hold a secured claim pursuant to [Section] 506(a)” does not have the “right to other benefits of ‘secured status in the bankruptcy proceeding.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Snyder, 343 F.3d 1171, 1179 (9th Cir.2003)); see also In re Fair, 450 B.R. 853, 2011 WL 1486021, *3 (E.D.Wis.2011) (<HOLDING>); In re Davis, 447 B.R. 738, 746
holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien can be avoided under nobelman holding an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order holding that postconfirmation attempt to equitably subordinate claim of one general unsecured creditor in a class of general unsecured creditors was a violation of  1123a4 holding that unsecured creditor could not appeal decision determining priority among secured creditors because it would not affect the payment of his claims holding that because creditors claim was unsecured after application of section 506a and because section 1325a5 does not apply to unsecured claims creditors lien could properly be avoided