In re Melillo, 385 B.R. 476, 481-82 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) (Hillman) (Failure to object to balloon payment of arrearages is not consent to treatment that is inconsistent with § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(l). “I cannot infer a secured creditor’s consent to treatment which is expressly prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code from a lack of an objection because ‘it has a reasonable expectation that I will not approve treatment which violates the Bankruptcy Code.’ Here, graduated payments and backloaded balloon payments in plans are exactly the proposed treatment Congress sought to prohibit.”).

In re Bethoney, 384 B.R. 24, 34 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2008) (Hillman) (Failure to object to plan that bifurcates a 910-day PMSI car claim is not inferred acceptance of plan; court denies confirmation notwithstanding adequate notice and lack of objection from lienholder. Citing In re Montoya, 341 B.R. 41 (Bankr. D. Utah 2006), “I cannot infer Capital One’s consent to this treatment from the lack of objection because it has a reasonable expectation that I will not approve treatment which violates the Bankruptcy Code.”).
See Also:  Bankruptcy Lawyers Boston