A.2d 884 (Me.1984) (lengthy consideration of strict foreclosure). 15 . For example, as discussed supra, if the mortgagee is the high bidder, a surplus or deficiency is computed with reference to the property’s fair market value, rather than the amount of the successful bid. See § 6324. 16 . This conclusion also places my analysis outside the judicial dialogue concerning the operative moment in a foreclosure process for determining when the mortgagee/debtor loses the right to cure pursuant to §§ 1322(b)(2), (3), and (5) after the enactment of § 1322(c)(1) Compare In re Rambo, 199 B.R. 747 (concluding that the completion of all the required steps of a foreclosure sale under state law determines when a sale is "conducted" for the purpose of § 1322(c)(1)) with In re McCarn, 218 B.R. 154 (<HOLDING>) and In re Sims, 185 B.R. 853 (offering an
holding that the debtor is entitled to cure the arrearage until entry of an order confirming the foreclosure sale completes the foreclosure process under oklahoma law holding that  1322c1 did not allow debtors to cure home mortgage defaults after a foreclosure sale regardless of state law redemption rights holding that  1322c1 is not ambiguous that the debtors cure right terminates on the date of the foreclosure sale regardless of the intricacies of the state foreclosure sale process and refusing to attach significance to the legislative record indicating that more extensive cure rights under state law persevere holding that the debtor had the right to cure the default because the foreclosure sale was not complete under state law until it was confirmed by a court holding that debtor could not cure and maintain mortgage after foreclosure sale in case decided prior to effective date adding  1322c1