With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

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 an unsecured creditors postconfirmation suit against a secured creditor for fraudulent misrepresentation at a creditors meeting constituted a collateral attack on the confirmation order
C: 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
D: holding that a wholly unsecured junior mortgage lien can be avoided under nobelman
A.