assumes Borrower’s obligations under this Security Instrument in writing, and is approved by Lender, shall obtain all of Borrower’s rights and benefits under this Security Instrument....”)). Federal law has created certain exceptions to the enforceability of due-on-sale clauses. During the early 1980s, some courts criticized these clauses as unreasonable restraints on trade. See, e.g., Wellenkamp v. Bank of Am., 21 Cal.3d 943, 148 Cal.Rptr. 379, 582 P.2d 970 (1978), superseded by statute, 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3. In response, Congress passed the Gann-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which generally prohibited state laws restricting due-on-sale clauses. 12 U.S.C. § 1701j-3; see also Fidelity Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Congress also believed “that it would be
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding that a pregannst germain act federal regulation preempted a state law restricting the enforcement of dueonsale clauses holding that a state election law is preempted only to the extent that it conflicts with federal law holding that state law claim regarding breach of settlement agreement was preempted by federal labor law holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law