of claims, with the focus again clearly on the claim held by the entity, not the entity holding the claim). Suppose the same creditor holds a claim protected from bifurcation and an unrelated, unsecured claim. Which portion of § 1322(b)(2) prevails — the part that says that the rights of such a claimant cannot be modified, or the part stating that its rights can be modified? What is to prevent unprotected claimants from assigning their claims to a protected claimant, so that the debtor could not modify any claims? Is there any logic to the notion that a “holder” of, say, a $100,000 claim secured by a home mortgage to the extent of $50 (after allowing for senior liens) is protected from bifurcation, but not if the senior liens exceed the home’s value? Cf. Kaczmarczyk, 107 B.R. at 204 (<HOLDING>). In light of these considerations, I agree
holding that the meaning of allowed secured claim in  506a does not determine the meaning of allowed secured claim in  506d holding that the rights of a bona fide purchaser outweighed those of an under secured second mortgage holder holding that if claim is not an allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506a by its terms section 1325a5b is inapplicable holding that  1322b2 does not protect the holder of a junior mortgage  when the holders claim is not secured to any extent under  506a holding that despite foreclosure judgment providing that the holder of a junior mortgage had no interest in or lien on or claim to said premises the lack of foreclosure sale meant that the junior mortgage was not extinguished