Judge rules it was OK for widow to lose home over $6.30 in unpaid interest

[Autumnlicious]

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?

There are inconsistencies with giving due notice. The supposed notice was by First Class mail - not registered mail, which requires a signature.

Dependence on a less reliable form of service has opened up easy ways of overturning default judgments - I've been able to make use of that myself.

There also are alternative methods to obtaining the required funds, which were substaintially less than the net worth of the house.

Ultimately, there could've been a more cohesive and careful process.

But, like predatory lenders have exploited to great effect, it is often easier to try for seizing homes over pursuing debts.

You're not wrong.

But you're an asshole.

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?

Because there are suspicions the owner was vulnerable?

That there may have not been proper notice?

That the process may have been rushed?

It's not the first time courts have made premature judgments?

Nuance isn't your strong point it seems.

All I see from you is how much Pharaoh can harden his heart.