RE: Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest
April 28, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Well, AFAIK, the judge didn't order the sale on account of the $6.30 in interest in the first place He refused to reverse an sale that was already legally made.
It was unfortunate the sale was made. But it was legal, and it has already been made, and the buyer procures it legally and without doing as far as I can tell anything unconscionable. So why should he/she be done out of his/her legally acquired property when he/she did nothing wrong in favor of someone who has done something wrong?
At what point should a buyer stop worrying that his legal purchases, upon which he may have based many plans and staked many interests, could be reversed merely because the original owner was pitiable?
It was unfortunate the sale was made. But it was legal, and it has already been made, and the buyer procures it legally and without doing as far as I can tell anything unconscionable. So why should he/she be done out of his/her legally acquired property when he/she did nothing wrong in favor of someone who has done something wrong?
At what point should a buyer stop worrying that his legal purchases, upon which he may have based many plans and staked many interests, could be reversed merely because the original owner was pitiable?
