Did anyone else actually read the details surrounding this case? The couple refinanced their home using a sub-prime lender back in 2004 to apparently support the husbands online business, and deal with some increased health care cost. Not sure which was more of a pressing issue at the time. Irregardless, the bank sued back in 2005 for failure to pay, and only just received "permission" to foreclose on the property last January. So that means conceivably this couple could have been living here for free or near free for the last 5 years!

Now, I'm not one to be cold and I also don't know the details concerning the gentleman's medical condition, but it is hard for me to see what the bank could have done that was so reprehensible as to garner this type of reaction from the judge. The man involved even said himself that it seemed more of a personal vendetta. I can understand empathy, but this seems almost a near reckless decision by the judge involved.