This was the recommendation of retired Oregon Supreme Court Judge that I had as a law professor (b-school not law school).

Housing Discrimination Doesn’t Need Intent, Supreme Court SaysPosted in Law & Policy, by Robert Freedman on July 1, 2015 Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on linkedinShare on google_plusone_shareShare on emailMore Sharing Services3Much of the country’s attention has been on the United States Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage equality and the Affordable Care Act last week, but the nation’s highest court also handed down an important housing decision that looks at whether a public or private entity can get hit with a federal Fair Housing lawsuit even if it had no intent to discriminate.

The seller just tried negotiating with the bank to remove the lien without going to court and wasting everyone's time and money but obviously they were having none of that.There is a supreme court case open right now in miami, fl that is almost identical to his case.

I'm relatively new here, but thus far the resources have been abundant and supremely helpful.

The Illinois Supreme Court has already ruled that pension and retiree healthcare benefits cannot be cut. 

And here we are beating ourselves up for not having supreme focus!  

Centre Pointe ***’n decision is now out: The Supreme Court invalidated that association’s rental cap amendment but did not invalidate all rental cap amendments.

So if you fight (and most likely loose) at trial court, and loose on appeal, TX Supreme Court will be strongly UNLIKELY to imply a duty of confidentiality between the buyer and appraiser. 

To me (not a lawyer) they seem to have a good argument based on the supreme court case that made this possible, Knick Vs Township of Scott.

There is currently a case pending in the Alabama Supreme Court to decide if you are entitled to damages equal to the reasonable rental value of the property if you file ejectment after a tax deed and after a notice to vacate.