With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was not convinced that Congress intended “to depart from the pre-Code rule that liens pass through bankruptcy unaffected.” Id. at 417, 112 S.Ct. 773. “[T]o attribute to Congress the intention to grant a Debtor the broad new remedy against allowed claims to the extent they become 'unsecured' for purposes of § 506(a) without the new remedy’s being mentioned somewhere in the Code itself or in the annals of Congress is not plausible, in our view, and is contrary to basic bankruptcy principles.” Id. a .Y. 1996); In re Jones, 201 B.R. 371 (Bankr. D.N.J.1996); In re Tanner, 223 B.R. 379 (Bankr .M.D.Fla.1998). 24 . Lam v. Investors Thrift, 211 B.R. 36 (9th Cir. BAP 1997), appeal dismissed, 192 F.3d 1309 (9th Cir. 1999). 25 . Id. at 41. See also, In re Plouffe, 157 B.R. 198 (Bankr.D.Conn.1993) (<HOLDING>); accord In re Sanders, 202 B.R. 986

A: 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
B: holding that an allowed wholly unsecured consensual junior lien may not be stripped off in a chapter 7 case
C: holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien can be avoided under nobelman
D: holding that a socalled chapter 20 debtor may strip off a wholly unsecured junior lien
C.