James Stacey Conley and Angela Marie Conley

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

In re:

JAMES STACEY CONLEY AND CASE NO. 23-10689-JCO

ANGELA MARIE CONLEY, CHAPTER 13

Debtors.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter came before the Court on the Debtors’ Objection to the Amended Proof of

Claim (ECF 7-2) filed by Pen Air Credit Union (“Pen Air”) and the Response thereto.(Docs. 110,

131). Proper notice of hearing was given and appearances were noted on the record. Upon

consideration of the pleadings, record, and arguments of counsel, this Court finds that the Debtors’

Objection to Pen Air’s Claim is due to be OVERRULED for the reasons below.

JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1334 and 157, and

the Order of Reference by the District Court dated August 25, 2015. This is a core proceeding

under 28 U.S.C.§157(b)(2)(B) and (K).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Debtors, James Stacey Conley and Angela Marie Conley, filed this Chapter 13

bankruptcy on March 28, 2023. (Doc. 1). Their schedules reflect that they owned real property at

12156 Squirrel Drive, Spanish Fort, Alabama1 (“Property”) which they valued at $304,900.00.(Id.

at 27). Their schedules also list the following liens on the Property: a $201,477.00 mortgage to

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, a $1,022.00 debt to Midland Funding, a $21,414.00 State of Alabama

tax lien; a $2,112.00 Homeowner’s Association obligation; and a $100.00 debt to Velocity

Investments. (Id. at 35-37). The Debtors also claimed their homestead exemption of $32,900.00,

leaving approximately $45,875.00 of non-exempt equity in the Property as of the Petition Date.2

The ECF Claims Registry reflects that the liens of Midland, the State of Alabama, and Velocity

were all recorded in the Office of Judge of Probate of Baldwin County, Alabama in 2021. (See

ECF Claims, 3-2, 14-1, and 15-1).

The deadline for filing proof of claims was June 6, 2023. Pen Air Credit Union (“Pen Air”)

timely filed a proof of claim for $7,087.09 on April 14, 2023 (“Initial Claim”). (ECF Claim 7-1).

One part of the Initial Claim denotes it as unsecured, while another states that it is based on a

judgment against Angela Conley. Id. Pen Air attached a copy of the Certificate of Judgment

reflecting that it was recorded in the Office of the Judge of Probate of Baldwin County, Alabama

on March 9, 2018. (Id.). The Initial Claim was prepared and filed by a bankruptcy specialist

employed by Pen Air, without the benefit of counsel.

The Debtors’ case was confirmed on July 6, 2023, with all allowed nonpriority, unsecured

claims to be paid 100% pro rata. (Doc. 34). The Confirmed Plan also contained a non-standard

plan provision stating that “. . .[t]he debt to Pen Air Federal Credit Union will be paid as unsecured

claim instead of secured in accordance with Proof of Claim #7 filed by Creditor and any claimed

lien shall be extinguished. (Id. at 4). On August 22, 2024, approximately 16 months into the 60-

month plan, Pen Air amended the Initial Claim to reflect its debt as secured and increased the

1 The Court notes that the Property is within the confines of Baldwin County, Alabama.

2 This is exclusive of Pen Air’s Judgment lien, which the Debtors did not list on their Schedule D.

amount to $17,246.64 (“Amended Claim”).(ECF Claim 7-2). The increased amount included

$8193.94 in interest on the judgment and attorney’s fees of $2328.50. (Id.). The record reflects

that the Amended Claim was filed by counsel. (Id.)

On May 29, 2024, the Debtors filed their First Motion to Sell the Property (Not Free and

Clear of Liens) for $395,000.00. (Doc.57). The Court approved the $395,000.00 sale and entered

an order providing in part that, “[f]rom the sale proceeds, the closing agent is authorized to pay all

outstanding mortgages and liens, usual and reasonable closing costs, and real estate broker’s fees

. . ..” (Doc. 73). The $395,000.00 sale was not consummated and a Second Motion to Sell (Not

Free and Clear of Liens) for $392,000.00 was filed on August 19, 2024. (Doc.83). Pen Air objected

to the $392,000.00 proposed sale, seeking payment of its judgment lien in full. (Doc. 93). Pen

Air’s objection was not adjudicated because the $392,000.00 proposed sale fell through and the

Second Motion to Sell was denied.(Doc. 98). The Debtors filed an Objection to Pen Air’s

Amended Claim on September 24, 2024, and their Third Motion to Sell the Property (Not Free

and Clear of Liens) for $380,000.00 on October 14, 2024. (Docs. 110, 115).

The Third Motion to Sell proposed to pay a 5% brokerage fee, the outstanding mortgage

debt, and various liens from the proceeds of the sale but did not reference the judgment debt owed

to Pen Air. (Doc. 115). Pen Air Objected to the Debtors’ Third Motion to Sell, again seeking

payment of their judgment lien from the closing proceeds. (Doc. 124). Pen Air also filed a

Response to the Debtors’ Objection to its Amended Claim.(Doc.131). This Court approved the

Third Motion to Sell (to avoid the loss of the Buyer), and entered an Order providing in part that:

From the sale proceeds, the closing agent is authorized to pay all outstanding

mortgages and liens, usual and reasonable closing costs, and real estate broker’s

fees on the terms previously approved, if applicable. The net proceeds attributable

to the interest of debtor(s) shall be disbursed as follows: $550.00 to Stephen L.

Klimjack and the remainder to be paid to the Chapter 13 Trustee, P. O. Box 1779,

Memphis, TN 38101 for application to the chapter 13 plan, with the percentage to

unsecured creditors to be paid 100%.

(Doc. 136).

The sale of the Property closed and the statements of the parties at the hearing together

with the Record reflect that: (1) the closing agent, Anchor Title, LLC, remitted $108,449.61 to the

Chapter 13 Trustee; (2) the Trustee has disbursed the proceeds received from the closing; and (3)

Anchor Title LLC is holding approximately $21,927.04, denoted on the closing statement as a

payoff of Pen Air’s Judgment, but has not remitted the funds pending a ruling from this Court on

the Debtors’ Objection to Claim. (Docs.158, 162-1, March 26 Hr’g 11:17). As of April 11, 2025,

the Chapter 13 Trustee’s records reflect that no payments have been made on Pen Air’s Initial or

Amended Claims, all the other claims have been paid in full at 100%, and the Trustee still has a

balance of approximately $9,122.49 on hand.

ANALYSIS

The Conleys assert that the Amended Claim should not be allowed because it is essentially

a new claim, Pen Air waived its right to receive post-petition interest, and equitable factors weigh

in favor of the Debtors.

ECF Claim 7-2 Should Be Treated As An Amended Claim, Not An Entirely New Claim

Amendments to proofs of claim are freely allowed to cure a defect in the claim as originally

filed, to describe the claim with greater particularity or to plead a new theory of recovery on the

facts set forth in the original claim. In re Int'l Horizons, Inc., 751 F.2d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir.

1985); In re Telephone Company of Central Florida, 308 B.R. 579, 582 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2004); In

re Norris Grain Co., 131 B.R. 747, 749–750 (M.D.Fla.1990), aff’d, 969 F.2d 1047 (11th

Cir.1992); In re Gilley, 288 B.R. 901, 905 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2002). In determining whether an

amended claim should be allowed courts often employ a two-prong test which: (1) evaluates

whether the amendment is a true amendment or a new claim disguised as an amendment; and (2)

applies a five-factor equitable balancing test. United States v. Int'l Horizons, Inc., 751 F.2d 1213,

1218 (11th Cir.1985); In re Jones, 219 B.R. 631, 634 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1998); In re National

Merchandise, 206 B.R. 993 (Bankr. M.D. Fla 1997); In re Miss Glamour Coat Co., Inc., 46

A.F.T.R.2d 80-6083, USTC § 9737 (S.D.N.Y.1980). The equitable factors considered are: (1)

whether the debtor and creditors relied on the earlier proof of claim or had reason to know that a

subsequent proof of claim would be filed; (2) whether other creditors would receive a windfall if

the court refused to allow amendment; (3) whether the claimant intentionally or negligently

delayed in filing the amendment; (4) the justification for the failure to file for an extension to the

bar date; and (5) whether other equitable considerations exist which compel amendment. Id.

Although some courts have held that amending a claim from unsecured to secured

constitutes a new claim, reasoning that the two are fundamentally different, this Court finds that

an equitable analysis based on the totality of the circumstances is the most appropriate approach.

See, e.g., In re Alliance Operating Corp., 60 F.3d 1174, 1175 (5th Cir.1995); In re Walls & All,

Inc., 127 B.R. 115, 118 (W.D.Pa.1991); In re Nat'l Merch. Co., 206 B.R. 993, 999

(Bankr.M.D.Fla.1997). In re Int'l Horizons, Inc., 751 F.2d 1213 (11th Cir.1985); In re Marineland

Ocean Resorts, Inc., 242 B.R. 748 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1999); In re Durango Georgia Paper Co., 314

B.R. 885, 888 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2004); In re Miss Glamour Coat Co., 80–2 U.S.T.C. ¶ 9737, 1980

WL 1668 (S.D.N.Y.1980).

Pen Air’s Initial Claim was timely filed, indicates that it is based on a judgment, and

includes the Certificate of Judgment which was duly recorded pre-petition.3 The basis for the

Amended Claim is the same Judgment. As the Debtors had substantial non-exempt equity in

Property before filing bankruptcy, Pen Air’s Judgment Lien attached pre-petition under applicable

state law.4 Thus, the Initial Claim contained conflicting information because it referenced and

attached the judgment evidencing secured status, while also checking the unsecured box.

Considering the inconsistencies in the Initial Claim and the fact it was prepared and filed without

the benefit of counsel, this Court finds that: (1) the checking of the unsecured box on the Initial

Claim should be construed as a clerical error; (2) the defect with conflicting information in the

Initial Claim is attributable to ignorance or mistake of the non-attorney preparer, rather than an

intentional relinquishment of a known right; (3) the Amended Claim is based on the same judgment

that was attached to the Initial Claim; and (4) the Amended Claim is more akin to an amendment

of the Initial Claim rather than a new claim.

The decisions cited by the Debtors are notably distinguishable from the facts of this case.

See In re Norris Grain Co., 81 B.R. 103 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1987), aff'd, 131 B.R. 747 (M.D. Fla.

1990), aff'd sub nom. Norris Grain Co. v. United States, 969 F.2d 1047 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding

amended claim for $1,690,026.00 in income taxes was substantially different than $365.75 claim

for interest on late payment of income taxes as they arose out of separate statutory provisions of

the Internal Revenue Code); In re Taylor, 280 B.R. 711, 715 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2001)(explaining

that allowing amendment four years after confirmation would be prejudicial); In re Barrera, No.

8:10-BK-26730-RCT, 2016 WL 6990876, at 2-3)(Bankr. M.D. Fla. Nov.29, 2016)(avoiding lien

3 Pen Air subsequently filed additional exhibits further supporting its claim including a copy of the underlying

agreement reflecting a default interest rate of 18%. (Doc. 163). Counsel stipulated to the admissibility thereof.

4 See Ala. Code §6-9-211.

after claim was paid as an unsecured for nearly five years and the debtors had made their final plan

payment).

Additionally, the record does not support the Debtors’ argument that Pen Air waived the

right to amend its claim. Although a creditor may waive its secured status in certain instances,

waiver requires the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Matter of Garfinkle, 672 F.2d

1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 1982)(citing Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Vogel, 195 So.2d 20

(Fla.App.1967); Gilman v. Butzloff, 155 Fla. 888, 22 So.2d 263 (1945); Rader v. Prather, 100 Fla.

591, 130 So. 15 (1930). Waiver requires: (1) the existence at the time of the waiver a right,

privilege, advantage, or benefit which may be waived; (2) the actual or constructive knowledge

thereof; and (3) an intention to relinquish such right, privilege, advantage, or benefit. Id. Waiver

does not arise from mere forbearance for a reasonable time. Fireman's Fund at 24. Thus, the

errors and omissions in Pen Air’s Initial Claim, filed without the benefit of counsel, does not

evidence an intent to relinquish the ability to amend its claim, abandon its secured status, or

otherwise waive its rights as a judgment lienholder.

Additional Equitable Considerations Support Allowance of the Amended Claim.

Consideration of the five Miss Glamour Coat Factors employed by the Eleventh Circuit in

United States v. Int'l Horizons, Inc., also weigh in favor of allowing ECF Claim 7-2 as an Amended

Claim. First, as the Initial Claim contained inconsistent information and counsel was not involved

in its preparation or filing, it was reasonably foreseeable that Pen Air would seek to correct its

claim and assert its lienholder interest. This is especially true here since the Debtors sold Property

for an amount that was substantially higher than disclosed in their schedules and more than

sufficient to pay all the creditors’ claims in full. The Debtors’ assertion that Pen Air’s unsecured

treatment in the Debtors’ prior Chapter 13 Bankruptcy5 precludes secured treatment in this case is

not persuasive because: (1) there was no actual adjudication or avoidance of Pen Air’s lien in the

prior case; (2) property values can appreciate with the passage of time affecting a creditor’s secured

status; and (3) it is not equitable for the Debtors to seek res judicata effect from a prior case that

was dismissed less than a year into a proposed sixty-month plan due to their failure to make

payments.

Secondly, disallowance of the Amended Claim would result in the disparate treatment of

judgment lien creditors in contravention of the bankruptcy tenet requiring debtors to treat similarly

situated creditors the same and not unfairly discriminate. See 11 U.S.C. §1322(b)((1). There is no

dispute that Pen Air had a validly perfected pre-petition judgment. Yet other judgment creditors,

whose liens were subordinate to Pen Air, received 100% payment of their claims while Pen Air

has not received any payments from the Trustee.6 Thus, the other creditors would not be

prejudiced by allowance of the Amended Claim. As the Closing Statement reflects that Anchor

Title is holding sufficient funds to satisfy Pen Air’s Judgment, allowance of the Amended Claim,

in whole or in part, would not require disgorgement of previously disbursed funds, impose any

hardship upon other creditors, or cause any administrative issues for the Trustee. It would also not

detrimentally impact the completion of the bankruptcy or require the Debtors to make any further

payments into the case to receive a discharge. Conversely, disallowance of the Amended Claim,

would result in disparate treatment of judgment lien creditors in violation of the Bankruptcy Code

and bestow a windfall upon the Debtors, who would receive the surplus created thereby.

5 Bankr. S.D. Ala. 22-11645.

6 The Court takes judicial notice of the Chapter 13 Trustee’s case overview ledger pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 201. The Trustee’s recorded reflect that all the claims in the case, except for Pen Air’s, have been paid in

full and that Pen Air has not received any payments from the Trustee.

Third, as the Debtors acknowledged, there is no evidence of bad faith or dilatory tactics by

Pen Air. (Doc.157 at 4). Even though the Initial Claim was not amended until August 22, 2024,

approximately 44 months remained for the Debtors to payout the case at that time had they chosen

to do so. The Record reflects that once counsel was obtained, the Initial Claim was promptly

amended.7 Additionally, Pen Air filed an Objection to the Debtors’ Second Motion to Sell. Thus,

even though the Debtors did not pursue the Second Motion, they were aware of Pen Air’s Judgment

since the filing of the Initial Claim and its intent to seek satisfaction if its lien from the closing

proceeds prior to filing their Third Motion. The Court does not find the fourth factor relevant

because as discussed above, the Initial Claim was timely filed.

Pen Air Is Entitled to Satisfaction of Its Judgment Lien

Alabama law provides that the holder of a judgment has a lien upon property of the debtor,

which is subject to execution, upon recording the judgment, or a certificate of the judgment, with

the Judge of Probate. In re Holloway, 254 B.R. 289, 291 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2000), aff'd, 261 B.R.

490 (M.D. Ala. 2001)(citing Ala.Code § 6–9–211; Citibanc of Alabama/Tuskegee v. Potter, 379

So.2d 553, 555 (Ala.1979). It is well established that a discharge in bankruptcy does not extinguish

a lien on property which had attached as of the date of the petition. In re Barnes, 326 B.R. 832,

841–42 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 2005)(citing Long v. Bullard, 117 U.S. 617, 620–21, 6 S.Ct. 917, 918,

29 L.Ed. 1004 (1886); In re Thomas, 883 F.2d 991, 996–97 (11th Cir.1989; In re Holloway, 254

B.R. 289, 292 (Bankr.M.D.Ala.2000), In re Penrod, 50 F.3d 459, 461–62 (7th Cir.1995); In re

Tarnow, 749 F.2d 464, 465 (7th Cir.1984). A bankruptcy discharge extinguishes only in personam

7 The ECF docket reflects that the Initial Claim was amended by counsel the same day that Pen Air’s counsel

appeared by filing its Objection to the Debtors’ Motion to Sell on August 22, 2024.

claims against the debtor(s), but generally has no effect on an in rem claim against the debtor's

property. In re Holloway at 292 (citing Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410, 419, 112 S.Ct. 773, 779,

116 L.Ed.2d 903 (1992)). Additionally, Courts have held that confirmation of Chapter 13 plans,

without more, does not divest the holder of a lien of its rights in collateral. Id. (citing In re

Deutchman, 192 F.3d 457 (4th Cir.1999); In re Hanson, 58 F.3d 89 (4th Cir.1995). The

Bankruptcy Code provides a mechanism for avoiding a judgment lien to the extent it impairs an

exemption to which the Debtor would have been entitled. 11 U.S.C. §522(f). The Local

Bankruptcy Rules of this jurisdiction also provide that:

A motion to avoid a judicial lien under Bankruptcy Code § 522(f) shall:

(a) Clearly identify the party that holds the lien sought to be avoided in both

the title and the body of the motion;

(b) Describe when and where the lien is recorded in the official records, i.e.,

book and page or instrument numbers; and

(c) Have attached a copy of the lien sought to be avoided.

LBR 4003-1.

Although the Debtors argue that the language included in their plan, proposing to avoid

Pen Air’s lien, is determinative, this Court disagrees. The Debtors did not file a motion to avoid

Pen Air’s Judgment lien but instead included a statement in a non-standard provision of their

Chapter 13 plan. Such statement did not comply with LBR 4003-1. There was no evidentiary

hearing or substantive adjudication on the issue of whether Pen Air’s Judgment lien was due to be

avoided. To be clear, this Court holds that any attempt to avoid a lien through the use of a non-

standard provision in a Chapter 13 Plan is ineffective.

Further, if the judgment lien could have been avoided, such avoidance would not be

effective until completion of the bankruptcy case. As noted above, it is a fundamental principle of

bankruptcy that a lien, as an in rem interest in property, “ passes through bankruptcy unaffected

unless something happens to it during the case.” In re Andrews, 500 B.R. 214, 220 (Bankr. N.D.

Ga. 2013). In instances in which liens are avoided during the Chapter 13 proceeding, it is plan

completion that voids the lien. In re Jennings, 454 B.R. 252, 255 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011.) Here,

the Debtors sold the Property before completion of the case for more than enough to pay off the

outstanding liens, (including Pen Air’s Judgment) as well as 100% of the unsecured claims. For

all these reasons, the Court finds that Pen Air’s Judgment lien must be satisfied from the closing

proceeds.

Amount Necessary to Satisfy Pen Air’s Judgment Lien

As this Court has determined that the Debtors’ Objection to Pen Air’s Amended Claim is

due to be overruled and satisfaction of the underlying Judgment is required, it will also address the

amount necessary to satisfy the Judgment lien. When a proof of claim contains all the information

required under Rule 3001, it “constitute[s] prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the

claim.” In re Walston, 606 F. App'x 543, 546 (11th Cir. 2015)(citing Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(f). To

comply with Rule 3001 and be entitled to prima facie evidentiary status, therefore, a claim based

on a writing must attach one of two things: (1) the writing forming the basis for the claim or a

duplicate or (2) a sufficient explanation or summary. See In re Tran, 369 B.R. 312, 316

(S.D.Tex.2007). It is also recognized that the ‘basic federal rule’ in bankruptcy is that state law

governs the substance of claims.” Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15, 20, 120 S.Ct.

1951, 147 L.Ed.2d 13 (2000) (quoting Butner v. U.S., 440 U.S. 48, 57, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d

136 (1979)). Thus, “[c]reditors' entitlements in bankruptcy arise in the first instance from the

underlying substantive law creating the debtor's obligation, subject to any qualifying or contrary

provisions in the Bankruptcy Code.” Id. (citing Butner, 440 U.S. at 55, 99 S.Ct. 914; Vanston

Bondholders Protective Comm. v. Green, 329 U.S. 156, 161–62, 67 S.Ct. 237, 91 L.Ed. 162

(1946)).The Alabama Code provides in pertinent part that,

Judgments for the payment of money, other than costs, if based upon a contract

action, bear interest from the day of the cause of action, at the same rate of interest

as stated in the contract; all other judgments shall bear interest at the rate of 7.5

percent per annum, the provisions of Section 8-8-1 to the contrary notwithstanding;

provided, that fees allowed a trustee, executor, administrator, or attorney and taxed

as a part of the cost of the proceeding shall bear interest at a like rate from the day

of entry.

Ala. Code. §8-8-10.

The evidence established that Pen Air obtained and perfected a pre-petition judgment

against Debtor, Angela Conley, which attached to the Property. Yet as the Debtors’ Objection

disputes the inclusion of interest and attorney’s fees sought in the Amended Claim, such issue

merits consideration.

It is well-settled that claims based on credit card debts are based on writings. See, e.g., In

re Armstrong, 320 B.R. 97 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.2005); In re O'Brien, 440 B.R. at 661 (“[C]ourts agree

that a credit card agreement is based upon a writing and therefore, to comply with Rule 3001(c),

the claimant also must file the ‘writing’ on which the claim is ‘based.’ ”). Pen Air provided a copy

of the “Loan Liner Credit Card Application” as well as a copy of its Certificate of Judgment. (ECF

Claim 7-1, Doc. 131 at 8). The documentation supports Pen Air’s assessment of 18% post-

judgment interest because: (1) the Loanliner credit agreement disclosure provides for an 18%

penalty APR upon failure to make timely payments; and (2) the undisputed evidence reflects that

the Debtors defaulted on the loan payments resulting in entry of the Judgment. Hence, under

Alabama Code §8-8-10, the “rate of interest as stated in the contract” is 18%. Further, Pen Air’s

documents provide in part that, the debtor agreed to “ pay all costs of collecting the amount due

under [the] Agreement, including court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.” (Doc. 163 at 5). As

Pen Air’s original claim includes $1,153.50 in attorney’s fees awarded by the State Court through

the date of the Judgment, and the Creditor’s claim seeks another $2,328.50, the Court must

adjudicate the reasonableness of the additional fees requested. The record reflects that Pen Air

initially filed its own proof of claim and thereafter retained counsel to amend its claim and respond

to the Debtors’ Motions to Sell and Objections to Claim. Pen Air’s counsel necessarily also

attended hearings, filed pleadings, and submitted briefing on the pending matters. The Court finds

that such actions were necessary to protect Pen Air’s interest and the attorney’s fees claimed were

allowed by the underlying contract and reasonable.

CONCLUSION

Based on the above, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:

1. The Debtors’ Objection to Pen Air’s Proof of Claim (ECF Claim No 7-2) is

OVERRULED.

2. Pen Air’s Claim 7-2 is ALLOWED as secured in the amount of $17,246.64.

3. Anchor Title, LLC is directed to remit $21,885.108 (the funds held for payment of Pen

Air’s judgment lien), to the Chapter 13 Trustee immediately and no later than ten days

from entry of this Order.

4. Such payment shall include the Debtors’ name and case number in the reference, be

made payable to the Chapter 13 Trustee, Christopher T. Conte, and mailed to the

Chapter 13 Trustee at P.O. Box 1779 Memphis TN, 38101-1779.

5. Upon receipt and posting of the payment required under paragraph 3, the Chapter 13

Trustee shall pay Pen Air’s Proof of Claim in accordance with the terms of this Order.

8 If Anchor Title earned any interest on the amount held since the date of the closing, the amount remitted to the

Chapter 13 Trustee shall be increased accordingly.

6. Such payment shall constitute full satisfaction of Pen Air’s Judgment recorded in the

Office of Probate of Baldwin County, Alabama, Instrument Number 1683777.

7. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on the Debtor, Debtor’s

Counsel, the Chapter 13 Trustee and Anchor Title LLC. Service upon Anchor Title,

LLC shall be made by first class and certified mail addressed as follows: Anchor Title,

LLC, Attn: Registered Agent, Joy Nash, 3173B, Dauphin Street, Mobile, AL 36606.

Dated: July 7, 2025

yo

14