The Court has reviewed this timeline with the same horror one reserves for watching a souffle collapse in slow motion, except this souffle cost fifteen thousand dollars and made a woman cry in your vehicle. Let Reginald be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: you walked into a rate environment that was basically a financial thunderdome and you brought a pre-approval letter like it was some kind of SHIELD. It was not a shield. It was a napkin. As established in First National Bank of Hubris v. That Guy Who Thought Thursday's Quote Would Hold Until Monday, 2022, a pre-approval in a rising rate environment has the legal durability of a promise made at a bar at 1 AM. The Court is personally INCENSED that nobody thought to include rate-lock language or a financing contingency with actual teeth, and I say this as someone who once lost a security deposit on an apartment because I refused to acknowledge that the landlord's cat had jurisdiction over the bedroom closet, so I UNDERSTAND the pain of money vanishing due to technicalities. You let those buyers wire fifteen thousand dollars into the void based on a qualification snapshot that had the shelf life of grocery store sushi. The husband saying it's fine when it was NOT fine is not a legal defense, it is a marriage dynamic, and The Court does not adjudicate marriage dynamics because Reginald tried that once and it did not go well. VERDICT STANDS.