plan. Allowing the Debtors to now modify their chapter 13 plan in such a way as to reduce the value received by GMAC is inequitable and such a result is unacceptable under the Bankruptcy Code and relevant case law. The Debtors’ proposed modification is not permitted by § 1329(a). The Bankruptcy Code does not allow the Debtors’ to modify the amount of an allowed secured claim post-confirmation. To allow the Debtors’ to surrender their vehicle and reclassify GMAC’s deficiency as an unsecured claim would shift the loss resulting from the vehicle’s depreciation to GMAC. Such a result seems illogical when any appreciation post-confirmation would benefit the debtor and not the secured creditor. See e.g. Ford Motor Credit Company v. Stevens (In re Stevens), 130 F.3d 1027, 1030 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). A debtor who decides to retain collateral at
holding that a secured creditor is not entitled to receive any more than that to which it was entitled pursuant to the terms of the confirmed plan holding that  506a does not require or permit a reduction in the creditors secured claim to account for purely hypothetical costs of sale of chapter 13 debtors residence 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 the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim holding that chapter 13 debtors were unable to avoid a creditors unperfected secured claim because they lacked standing