court opinions which it has found have allowed Chapter 13 plans to modify the rights of a home lender where the debtor has not been in privity with the home lender. i. Cases where the facts are distinguishable from the case at bar. Garcia is the leading case holding that “the default arising from the due on sale clause can be cured without impermissibly modifying the Bank’s lien rights.” In re Garcia, 276 B.R. 627, 628 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2002). However, Garcia, which has very similar facts to the current case, is distinguishable because in Arizona due on sale clauses are “invalid,” Id. at 642-43, whereas due on sale clauses are valid in Texas. Sonny Arnold, 633 S.W.2d at 811. Other cases, however, are distinguishable on oth er facts. See In re Flores, 345 B.R. 615, 617 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.2006) (<HOLDING>); In re Curinton, 300 B.R. 78
holding wife who was not the original signor could include property in plan because it was community property holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that spouse could not claim exemption in property that was only property of other spouses estate holding that because property was no longer property of the estate the court could not order turnover holding that the debtor could retain exempt property because it was not property of the estate