to foreclosure: estoppel, breach of conditions precedent, unclean hands, and failure to mitigate damages. The affirmative defenses are based on the Commitment letter and the Crafts’ contention that their obligations under the notes were conditioned upon fulfillment of Montana Federal’s obligations under the Commitment Letter. The district court rejected these affirmative defenses on two separate grounds: 1) the contemporaneous execution requirements of FIRREA provision, 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e); and 2) the D’Oench, Duhme doctrine. 1. D’Oench, Duhme Doctrine The D’Oench, Duhme doctrine protects the FDIC from unwritten agreements that relieve a debtor of the obligation to repay a facially unconditional note. D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 62 S.Ct. 676, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942) (<HOLDING>). Although the Commitment Letter, the notes,
holding that the bank was not entitled to reform the note which stated that debtor would make monthly payments less than what the parties intended even though error was mutual mistake of parties where debtor made all of the previous payments was retired and could not afford to pay any additional obligations to the bank and meet his current living expenses holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding that where debtor lends himself to a scheme or arrangement whereby the banking authority on which the fdic relied in insuring the bank was or was likely to be misled the debtor is estopped from denying the obligation of a facially unconditional note holding debtor could include property because the bank accepted payments directly from the debtor and had previously allowed the debtor to cure default holding that a debtor in bankruptcy may claim as exempt the cash surrender value of a life insurance policy insuring the life of the debtor that is payable to a beneficiary other than the debtor under dccode ann  314716a2001 despite the absence of the term cash surrender from the statute