In McFarland-Rourk v. Drive Time Credit, Inc., 2016 WL 3014679, at *2-3 (M.D.Ga., 2016), Judge Land exercise jurisdiction and found an auto finance company’s post-discharge of a consumer’s vehicle to be proper.
The general rule is that “[u]nless a lien is avoidable and the debtor has taken timely steps to avoid it, the lien survives the discharge in bankruptcy.” Holloway v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 81 F.3d 1062, 1063 (11th Cir. 1996). The Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor may avoid certain types of liens on property exempt from the bankruptcy estate to the extent that the lien impairs the exemption. 11 U.S.C. § 552(f). “An exemption is an interest of the debtor carved out of the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of the debtor and thereby shielded from creditors’ claims.” Holloway, 81 F.3d at 1063. Only two types of liens on exempt property may be avoided: (1) judicial liens and (2) nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interests in household goods, tools of the trade, or health aids. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1). *3 The lien on McFarland-Rourk’s vehicle is not a lien that the Code permits a debtor to avoid. McFarland-Rourk does not allege that Drive Time has a judicial lien on the vehicle. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(A). Nor does she allege facts indicating that Drive Time has a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest in the vehicle. 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B). To the contrary, the pleadings reveal that Drive Time has an archetypal purchase-money security interest: Drive Time lent McFarland-Rourk money so that she could purchase a vehicle and Drive Time got a security interest in that vehicle.1See Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1 (emphasis added) (stating that McFarland-Rourk entered into a contract with Drive Time “to purchase 2007 [sic] Wolfsburg Edition Volkswagen Jetta.”). Based on the undisputed facts, Drive Time’s lien is not avoidable under § 522(f). Therefore, neither Drive Time nor United Auto Recovery violated the bankruptcy court’s discharge injunction when they repossessed the vehicle.