current in their monthly payments.” Id. If the Bankruptcy Court’s statement indicates a finding of fact that the debtors were not in default, such a conclusion is clearly erroneous. While the debtors had resumed paying monthly payments and had made up for the previous missed payments, the debtors remained in default as to their obligation under the Note and Security Agreement. When the debtors were late with their monthly installments, late charges accrued. These charges have not been paid by the debtors. Additionally, the Note and Security Agreement requi s determined that the three options set forth in Section 521(2) do not prevent the further alternative of retaining the property and remaining current on the debt.”) (emphasis added); In re Doss, 203 B.R. 57, 60 (Bankr.W.D.Va.1996) (<HOLDING>). Having concluded that Belanger is not
holding that bankruptcy court was not required to provide debtor with a hearing before dismissing debtors chapter 13 case where debtor received notice that his case was going to be dismissed if he missed another payment recognizing that belanger may be factually distinguished from case involving defaulting debtor recognizing that trial judges have an affirmative obligation to prevent factually unsupported claims and defenses from proceeding to trial 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 differences in matters of succession distinguished legitimation from acknowledgment in the statute at issue