With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See In re Allawas, No. 07-06058-hb, slip op. (Bankr.D.S.C. Mar. 3, 2008) (denying confirmation, despite the use of exempt social security income, for lack of good faith where debtor proposed to retain an expensive motorcycle as a second vehicle). Moreover, the Plan provides for inconsistent treatment of similarly situated creditors in that it would allow an apparently undersecured mortgage creditor to receive a full cure of its undersecured claim while other unsecured creditors receive a de minimis payment. Though Debtor may have acquired the home during more prosperous times, it is apparent that the expense associated with the home led to Debtor’s current need to seek relief in this Court to cure a debt that he can no longer afford. See In re Rice, 72 B.R. 311, 313 (D.Del.1987) (<HOLDING>); In re Leone, 292 B.R. 243, 245

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 the purpose of the bankruptcy codes avoidance provisions is to prevent a debtor from making transfers that diminish the bankruptcy estate to the detriment of creditors
C: holding a debtor should not be able to retain a home the spoils of an imprudent purchase to the detriment of unsecured creditors
D: holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate
C.