           Case: 14-10803   Date Filed: 05/21/2014   Page: 1 of 2


                                                     [DO NOT PUBLISH]



            IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                      ________________________

                            No. 14-10803
                        Non-Argument Calendar
                      ________________________

         D.C. Docket No. 6:14-cv-00078-GAP; 6:13-bk-05337-KSJ



In Re: DAVID B. CAULKETT,

                                               Debtor.

________________________________________________________________

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.

                                               Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID B. CAULKETT

                                              Defendant-Appellee.


                      ________________________

               Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Middle District of Florida
                     ________________________

                             (May 21, 2014)
              Case: 14-10803     Date Filed: 05/21/2014   Page: 2 of 2


Before MARCUS, PRYOR, and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.



PER CURIAM:

      Bank of America, N.A. appeals the district court’s affirmance of the

bankruptcy court’s order voiding a wholly unsecured second priority lien on

residential property owned by a Chapter 7 debtor. The issue on appeal is whether a

Chapter 7 debtor is allowed to “strip off” a second priority lien on his home,

pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and (d), when the first priority lien exceeds the

value of the property.

      We addressed recently this issue and concluded that a wholly unsecured

junior lien -- such as the one held here by Bank of America -- is voidable under

section 506(d). See McNeal v. GMAC Mortg., LLC (In re McNeal), 735 F.3d

1263 (11th Cir. 2012) (citing Folendore v. United States Small Bus. Admin., 862

F.2d 1537 (11th Cir. 1989)). Bank of America acknowledges that this panel is

bound by the Court’s decisions in McNeal and Folendore, but reserves the right to

seek reconsideration of the issue by the en banc Court. Cf. United States v. Smith,

122 F.3d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Under the prior panel precedent rule, we

are bound by earlier panel holdings . . . unless and until they are overruled en banc

or by the Supreme Court.”).

      AFFIRMED.


                                          2
