Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
WL 2063555, at *5 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 28, 2008); Burdett v. Harrah’s Kansas Casino Corp., 294 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1227 (D.Kan.2003); Conboy v. AT & T Corp., 84 F.Supp.2d 492, 504 n. 9 (S.D.N.Y.2000); Dewey v. Associated Collectors Inc., 927 F.Supp. 1172, 1174 (W.D.Wis.1996); West v. Costen, 558 F.Supp. 564, 584 (W.D.Va.1983). 8 . The Brushes (but not Wells Fargo) point to two default letters that were sent in February and March 2008. (Docket Entry No. 36-2, Exs. 3, 4). The August 2009 loan modification agreement that Wells entered into with Mrs. Brush modified the original promissory note and cured the prior default. As a result, Wells Fargo was required to send the Brushes new notices after Mrs. Brush defaulted anew under the loan modification agreement. See Gatling, 2012 WL 3756581, at *11 . 9 . The Brushes allege that as a result of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a debtor may not silently transform a health education assistance loan nondischargeable under 42 usc  292fg into dischargeable debt by entering into a settlement agreement that is approved by the court pursuant to which the debtor consents to judgment against him
B. holding that a mortgagee is required to send new legal notices if a debtor who had previously defaulted on a note defaults again after entering into a loan modification agreement
C. holding debtor could cure after the debtor had previously made payments to the bank
D. holding that when the basis of the earlier suit was that the plaintiff had had defaulted on a promissory note and the claim in the instant action is whether that promissory note was valid the transaction test is met
E. holding that where a mortgagee is acting on behalf of the note holder there is no disconnection between note and mortgage and the mortgagee may foreclose
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.