Debtor is now in default, with nothing more. Does not specifically trigger any enforcement mechanism of default against the debtor if you literally read the provisions. Maybe this triggers remedies against a cosignor outside of Texas bankruptcy attorney, or default swap agreement, etc. The problem is that the statute talks about a contractual provision that operates to say default. This is much different than enforcement of the default. If they meant enforcement of a provision after default, it could have easily have been written “nothing in this title will prevent [the remedies under contract, state law, or repossession arising from] the operation of a provision to place a debtor in default…….”