With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". law. If the foreclosure sale conducted by the Bank in this case, was made in accordance with Alabama law, its objection should be sustained. In re Connors, 497 F.Bd 314, 318-19 (3rd Cir. 2007) (debtor loses the right to cure a default when the gavel falls); McCarn v. WYHY FCU (In re McCam), 218 B.R. 154, 160-61 (10th BAP Cir.); In re Morgan, Case No. 06-30531, 2006 WL 2338147 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2006) (Williams, B.J.); In re Fothergill, 293 B.R. 263 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2003); In re Cottrell, 213 B.R. 378 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1996) (Steele, B.J.); In re Sims, 185 B.R. 853, 863-66 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995) (section 1322(c)(1) prohibits debtor from reinstating mortgage after the foreclosure sale); see also Commercial Fed. Mtg. Corp. v. Smith (In re Smith), 85 F.3d 1555, (11th Cir. 1996) (<HOLDING>). C. Burden of Proof on Chapter 13 Plan

A: holding that foreclosure of prior mortgage extinguished second mortgage
B: holding that debtor could not cure and maintain mortgage after foreclosure sale in case decided prior to effective date adding  1322c1
C: holding that  1322c1 did not allow debtors to cure home mortgage defaults after a foreclosure sale regardless of state law redemption rights
D: holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank
B.