Id. at 679. Tewell notes that the Illinois Supreme Court has “expressly held that due-on-sale provisions are valid per se.” Id. at 680. Likewise, the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that due on sale clauses are valid and enforceable. Sonny Arnold, 633 S.W.2d at 811. The Debtor, in the case at bar, obtained title to the Property through execution of a warranty deed by the original mortgagors, the Morgans, in violation of the due on sale clause in the First Lien Note. [Finding of Fact No. 9], This Court is persuaded by the line of cases holding “that a debtor who obtained residential property from S 1308 (Bankr.N.D.Cal. 2010) (original debtor placed a junior encumbrance on property and did not attempt to sell to third party); and In re Allston, 206 B.R. 297, 299 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1997) (<HOLDING>). ii. Case where the facts are not
holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank holding debtor could cure default partly because the bank held a recourse loan and therefore could recover against the original borrower personally holding postconfirmation preconversion payments made by a reorganized debtor could not be recovered by the chapter 7 trustee upon conversion because the payments had been made from property which had revested in the reorganized debtor upon confirmation and was no longer property of the estate 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 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