With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Judge. This matter came before the court on the motion of Jonathan Jerome Bardell (the “Debtor”) requesting that Branch Banking & Trust, Riverside Trustee Company, and Draper & Goldberg, PLLC (the “Creditor”) be held in contempt of court for rejecting the Debtor’s post-petition mortgage payments. The Creditor filed a response to the motion asserting that refusal to accept payments was not a contemptuous act because the property subject to the mortgage had been sold at a foreclosure sale; therefore, the Debtor no longer had any right, title, or interest in the property. Argument was heard from the parties on April 18, 2006, and the parties subsequently supplemented their respective arguments with written briefs. The Creditor subsequently filed a motion for relief from the auto 1996) (<HOLDING>); In re Barham, 193 B.R. 229, 232

A: holding that the debtors could cure their arrearage until the expiration of the 10day upset bid period which would render the foreclosure sale complete under north carolina law
B: 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
C: 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
D: 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
C.