123, 126 (7th Cir.1997); People Who Care v. Ro isposed of the claims by Mr. Biasiello and Mr. Byrne; when the district court, on remand, finally determined the rights of Mr. Anglezis to the surplus, its distribution order became final. Under our precedent, the appellant’s notice of appeal was merely premature. We therefore have appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s partial disbursement orders. See id. 2. The Foreclosure and Sale We were also concerned about finality because Mr. Byrne’s intervention seeking back taxes was, in a sense, an attempt to renegotiate the sale price—perhaps undoing the sale’s finality. If so, then the scope of the appeal might also include the confirmation of sale itself. Cf. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys., 390 F.3d at 523—24 (emphasis added) (<HOLDING>). Such a situation raises, in turn, the
holding that a party is not entitled to pursue a separate action for deficiency judgment where the foreclosure complaint includes a prayer for a deficiency judgment and the foreclosure court reserves jurisdiction to enter a deficiency judgment holding that the debtors right to cure ended when the sheriff accepted the bid at the foreclosure auction even though the order confirming the sale had not been entered at the time of the bankruptcy filing holding that a foreclosure action becomes final only when the order confirming sale establishes who gets the property at what price and what deficiency judgment if any will be entered against the mortgagor holding that the redemption price was based on the amount bid at foreclosure  and not  what the subsequent purchaser paid  for the property 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