in determining that Mrs. Barr was entitled to only 50% of the net sales proceeds. While I agree that foreclosure was correct, there is no legal justification for concluding, as the majority opinion does, that the propriety of foreclosure is somehow dependent upon a particular distribution of proceeds. I also strongly reject the majority opinion’s surprising conclusion that Michigan law requires us to treat a forced sale for tax purposes as identical to a consensual sale. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. A. The District Court’s Order of Foreclosure It is undisputed that the government had the right to request, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7403, that the district court order the sale of the Residence. United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 680, 103 S.Ct. 2132, 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Craft, 535 U.S. 274, 283,
holding that the confirmation statute does not inhibit subsequent sale under power of property other than the property which at a former sale under power had failed to bring the amount of the debt  holding that after a judgment entry grants a decree of foreclosure and order of sale the foreclosure action cannot be dismissed as the judgment is final holding that  7403 grants power to order the sale holding that when a district court expressly grants leave to amend it is plain that the order is not final holding that an order authorizing a sale is a final judgment