law. If the foreclosure sale conducted by the Bank in this case, was made in accordance with Alabama law, its objection should be sustained. In re Connors, 497 F.Bd 314, 318-19 (3rd Cir. 2007) (debtor loses the right to cure a default when the gavel falls); McCarn v. WYHY FCU (In re McCam), 218 B.R. 154, 160-61 (10th BAP Cir.); In re Morgan, Case No. 06-30531, 2006 WL 2338147 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2006) (Williams, B.J.); In re Fothergill, 293 B.R. 263 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2003); In re Cottrell, 213 B.R. 378 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1996) (Steele, B.J.); In re Sims, 185 B.R. 853, 863-66 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995) (section 1322(c)(1) prohibits debtor from reinstating mortgage after the foreclosure sale); see also Commercial Fed. Mtg. Corp. v. Smith (In re Smith), 85 F.3d 1555, (11th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). C. Burden of Proof on Chapter 13 Plan
holding that  1322c1 did not allow debtors to cure home mortgage defaults after a foreclosure sale regardless of state law redemption rights holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding that debtor could not cure and maintain mortgage after foreclosure sale in case decided prior to effective date adding  1322c1 holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage holding that  1322c1 is not ambiguous that the debtors cure right terminates on the date of the foreclosure sale regardless of the intricacies of the state foreclosure sale process and refusing to attach significance to the legislative record indicating that more extensive cure rights under state law persevere