it was never so in the past, it is not so now with investment property which still has cramdown.
This is not about the persons, this is about “what is the house worth?”
but the two parties have entered a contract that’s terms are determined by the value of an goods being exchanged. When a judge alters the value of those goods (in this case adjusts the principal of the mortgage down) are they not injecting themselves (unconstituionally) into a contract?
Paging Roland Burris II, your cramdown is available in courtroom A.