Opinion ID: 1425716
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the equity of a purchaser for value at a regular judicial sale is superior to the equity of a gratuitous transferee

Text: The equity of a prior purchaser for value must be viewed as superior to that of a foreclosing lender who, like Sooner here, stands as a gratuitous transferee (i.e. one without consideration) from a holder of redemptive rights. The postsale right to redeem before confirmation is carved out by principles of public policy to afford a foreclosed borrower the best opportunity to revest title in himself and save the estate from foreclosure. [22] To give preference to a foreclosing lender, qua gratuitous transferee of an equity of redemption, over a purchaser for value at a regular judicial sale would contravene the law's policy if the holder of redemptive right did not himself benefit from the transfer. The policy of redemption was not designed to shield foreclosing lenders or to invalidate sales at the whim of foreclosing lenders acquiring redemptive interests by gratuitous transfers. A foreclosed borrower's right to redeem upon his default is equitable; and when its assertion is pressed against a superior equity of another, it would plainly offend the notions of fairness if the court did not withhold the relief sought. [23] When considering a plea to set aside a sale, the court must weigh the purchaser's equities against those of the vacation movant. [24] The attempted transfer of Credit Union's redemptive right to Sooner sans consideration was, at best, a transfer contingent upon the court's vacation of the sale. This contingency agreement to secure judicial invalidation of the sale is insufficient as a basis for giving Sooner an equity superior to that acquired by the purchaser at a regular foreclosure sale. [25]