it with or without the statute, and I fully understand that a judgement is worthless if you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip concept. My only point was:

a) that statute doesn't exist in OK as RQ pretended it did, so the buyer is still on the hook if the bank wants them to be.
b) that it would be difficult for a broke foreclosee to argue a higher FMV if the only offer the bank got was Lizzie's $4K. Are they really going to have the money to fight it if the bank claims $4K is the FMV?

I would also ask, in states where those statutes exist (or even when the bank doesn't go after the balance on the loan) is that then treated like a short sale? Where the write off is then reported as taxable income on which tax has to be paid? And if so, wouldn't then a lowball offer lead to a higher taxable income and tax to that "poor downtrodden" person?