The Eleventh Circuit and the Current State of the Anti-Modification Provision

This Note examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association, where the court held that the “anti-modification” provision applies to mixed-use properties that are used for both commercial and residential purposes. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Lee created a federal circuit split, as both the First and Third Circuits held that the anti-modification provision does not apply to mixed-use properties. As detailed in this Note, the Eleventh Circuit came to the incorrect conclusion in this case because it incorrectly interpreted the text of the anti-modification provision. However, the Eleventh Circuit’s incorrect decision is not the biggest problem with the current state of the anti-modification provision. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision merely highlights the existing tension between the text of the anti-modification provision and Congress’s purpose behind adding the anti-modification provision to the Bankruptcy Code. As such, considering the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case, Congress should amend the Bankruptcy Code to clarify the current status and applicability of the anti-modification provision.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Texas A&M Journal of Property Law
Published
2026-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.37419/jpl.v12.i3.3
Primary Topic
Corporate Insolvency and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The Eleventh Circuit and the Current State of the Anti-Modification Provision

Lexton Garrett
Texas A&M Journal of Property Law
Corporate Insolvency and Governance
article

The Eleventh Circuit and the Current State of the Anti-Modification Provision

Lexton Garrett
article en

Abstract

This Note examines the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association, where the court held that the “anti-modification” provision applies to mixed-use properties that are used for both commercial and residential purposes. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Lee created a federal circuit split, as both the First and Third Circuits held that the anti-modification provision does not apply to mixed-use properties. As detailed in this Note, the Eleventh Circuit came to the incorrect conclusion in this case because it incorrectly interpreted the text of the anti-modification provision. However, the Eleventh Circuit’s incorrect decision is not the biggest problem with the current state of the anti-modification provision. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision merely highlights the existing tension between the text of the anti-modification provision and Congress’s purpose behind adding the anti-modification provision to the Bankruptcy Code. As such, considering the Eleventh Circuit’s decision in this case, Congress should amend the Bankruptcy Code to clarify the current status and applicability of the anti-modification provision.

Texas A&M Journal of Property LawVol. 12(3)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Corporate Insolvency and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.