WALTER SHAPERO, Bankruptcy Judge
Debtor having moved for an order requiring the Michigan State Housing Development Authority ("MSHDA") to turn over a portion of a Replacement Reserve Account (or as it is named in the agreement, hereinafter referred to as the "Reserve Fund for Replacements") held by MSHDA pursuant to paragraph 3 of the December 1, 1971 Regulatory Agreement for Limited Dividend Mortgagors; the Court having held an evidentiary hearing in respect to same; the Court having concluded that the financial precariousness of the Debtor evidenced at that hearing (particularly in light of the fact that the likelihood of a consummation of the sale of the Debtor's property envisaged by the Debtor's recently confirmed plan is neither imminent nor sure) is such that a prompt decision should be made by this Court and its purport communicated to the parties in advance of the Court later more fully developing and articulating in full the rationale for its decision if it chooses to do so; the Court having found and concluded that: (1) whatever the Debtor's rights are with respect to the subject fund, while they are, and remain, property of the Debtor, in content they are no more or less than what is afforded to the Debtor, and delineated by the provisions of the indicated agreement; (2) the provisions of (a) the cash collateral orders preceding confirmation and (b) the confirmed plan have not altered the meaning and purport of the referred to reserve fund provision, which continues post confirmation to define the relationship and the rights of the parties in respect to the fund in question; (3) the terms of that provision specifically provide that MSHDA's written consent is required for disbursements from that fund, and MSHDA specifically refuses to give its consent to what is proposed in the Debtor's Motion, and/or what was proposed by it at the evidentiary hearing; (4) MSHDA has not waived its indicated rights to refuse consent, and, as a matter of law, this Court is not permitted to read into the consent provision an unstated condition or requirement that such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld; and (5) even if such a requirement could be found, given the varying testimony before the Court so far and the financial condition of the property, its immediate prospects, and the details of the current and anticipated vacancies, and what Debtor proposes, the Court would conclude from the evidence before it that the Debtor would not have carried its burden of proof that consent is being unreasonably withheld by MSHDA;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Debtor's said Motion is hereby denied.
It is to be further noted that in connection herewith, the Court is not here deciding (and by its conclusion no inference should be drawn with reference to) any question of whether or not MSHDA has the right or authority (presently or sometime in the future) to take any of the amounts in the subject fund and apply them to either the principal or other amounts due under the mortgage or mortgage note, or to pay or apply such to any delinquent or unpaid insurance premiums or taxes required under the governing documents to be paid by the Debtor.