circumstances, “the rights of the bank are destroyed if the court allows the [D]ebtor’s plan to force a new owner on the mortgagee in continued violation of the due on sale clause.” In re Allen, 300 B.R. at 105. This Court will not force a new owner (i.e. Mullin) on Wells Fargo. To do so would disregard Texas law that due on sale clauses are enforceable. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that the Plan impermissibly modifies the rights that Wells Fargo has under the First Lien Note and First Lien Deed of Trust. 3. Cases holding that a Chapter 13 plan may modify the rights of a home lender seeking to invoke its rights and remedies under a due on sale clause. Given the importance of due on sale clauses, the Court believes that it is appropriate to distinguish those bankrupt )(<HOLDING>); In re Trapp, 260 B.R. 267, 268
holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court holding debtor could cure default partly because the bank held a recourse loan and therefore could recover against the original borrower personally holding postpetition payments due to the debtor under a prepetition noncompete agreement were not property of the estate because the debtor had not done all acts necessary to accrue his right to the future payments holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default