price or (2) “the basis of compelling equities arising out of ‘fraud, mistake or a like infirmity.’ ” Chung King, 753 F.2d at 550-51 (quoting In re Webcor, Inc., 392 F.2d 893, 899 (7th Cir.1968)). There the court found fraud, mistake, or a like infirmity could be the basis to set aside a sale. Id. at 551. In this context, courts also provide, a sheriffs sale cannot be set aside for irregularity, unfairness, or fraud without a demonstration of prejudice. See Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683, 770 A.2d 182, 194 (Md.2001) (“[Our sister states] have found that [sheriffs or judicial] sales may be set aside when, there has been some form of misrepresentation or mistake, creating a prejudicial effect.” (Emphasis added)); cf. Farmers Sav. Bank v. Gerhart, 372 N.W.2d 238, 244 (Iowa 1985) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we believe a price obtained at a
holding that the burden of proving a violation of the idea lies on the party seeking relief during the administrative process holding in the context of mistake of law or fact that relief should be granted only when enforcement of the sale would impose an oppressive burden on the party seeking vacation holding that an appellate court should not undertake to review whether a plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when the only motion filed and the only motion on appeal was the trial courts grant of summary judgment holding the burden of proof in a bankruptcy court action for declaratory relief as to the ownership of disputed property was on the party making an affirmative claim for relief holding that rule 60b1 relied is available only where 1 a party has made an excusable litigation mistake or an attorney in the litigation has acted without authority from a party or 2 where the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or order