a mortgagee’s contract rights within a chapter 13 plan. Nobelman v. American Sav. Bank, 508 U.S. 324, 328, 113 S.Ct. 2106, 124 L.Ed.2d 228 (1993). The Supreme Court held that because the Code does not define “rights”, the Court must assume Congress “left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law”. Id. at 329, 113 S.Ct. 2106 (quoting Butner v. U.S., 440 U.S. 48, 54-55, 99 S.Ct. 914, 59 L.Ed.2d 136 (1979)). Consequently, under § 1322(b)(2), Wells Fargo’s and Novastar’s “rights” are those reflected in the relevant mortgage instruments, which are enforceable under Texas law. Id. These rights “are rights protected from modification by § 1322(b)(2)”. Id. at 329-30, 113 S.Ct. 2106; See also In re Wright, 492 F.3d 829, 832 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); In re Campbell, 361 B.R. 831, 850
holding that by knocking out  506 the hanging paragraph leaves the parties to their contractual entitlements governed by state law holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state holding that the admissibility of expert testimony was governed by state law recognizing that it is an open question whether drpa is a federal agency governed by the apa or a state agency governed by state administrative law holding a state workers compensation regime preempted by erisa to the extent state law applied to pension plans governed by federal law