While some homeowners may attempt to do so through their attorney, Bennett was ready and willing to do so through her duly authorized agent, Watson. Indeed, but for the Government’s own directive, Bennett would have paid $60,857.19. To fault Bennett under those circumstances and seek to deprive her of her statutory right turns logic and all notions of fairness on their heads. The Government’s position is particularly troubling to the extent it ignores the underlying purpose for a right of redemption. The right of redemption is widely recognized as an important and significant property interest of homeowners. See, e.g., Lee v. City of Chicago, 330 F.3d 456, 470 (7th Cir. 2003) (“A redemption right is a ‘significant property interest.’”); In re Sims, 185 B.R. 853, 863 (N.D. Ala. 1995) (<HOLDING>). Redemptive rights were created to protect
holding that the right of redemption is treated the same whether in a mortgage or security deed holding that a certificate of purchase transfers a vested contractual right in the real estate subject to redemption recognizing that water rights constitute a real property interest recognizing that the right of redemption is one of the most important rights provided by the states to owners of real property recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important