of proving the contrary is on the one attacking the sale.” Butler, 245 Md. at 453, 226 A.2d at 264. Determination of the precise amount of the debt, however, is reserved to examination of the auditor’s account. It is unnecessary — and incorrect — for the trial judge to rule upon the propriety of the debt amount prior to the audit or to depend upon the audit as a prerequisite to a consideration of the ratification of the sale. The correct procedure is that the ratification of the sale itself is first considered and if the sale was not procedurally irregular and the price is not unconscionable, it is ratified. Then, and only then, is the case first referred to the auditor for an audit. Exceptions to the audit may then be taken. See Pacific Mortgage, 81 Md.App. at 34, 566 A.2d at 783 (<HOLDING>). According to Maryland Rule 2-543, the
holding that it was error for the court to rule that the statement of mortgage debt was incorrect prior to submission of the auditors statement of account holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding appellate argument that statement violated rule 404b was improper because it was the defendant who elicited the statement at trial holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen