Also known as:courthouse door · public auction · foreclosure sale
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A location for the posting of notices of judicial sale on or immediately adjacent to the entrance of the courthouse building.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Notice Posted for Deficiency Sale
Atlas Ventures held a senior mortgage on property owned by Andre Antoine. After default and acceleration the trustee scheduled a foreclosure sale. The trustee posted the sale notice at the courthouse door as required by state procedure. The sale price fell short of the debt. Atlas Ventures then obtained a deficiency judgment against Andre Antoine.
Servitude Survives Foreclosure Sale
Alliance Holdings purchased land subject to an earlier-recorded easement benefiting Alexis Archer. A later mortgage on the burdened parcel went into default. The mortgagee posted the foreclosure sale notice at the courthouse door. The purchaser at the sale took title subject to the easement because the mortgage lacked priority over the servitude.
Adam Anderson obtained a charging order against Albert Allen's transferable interest in a partnership. Distributions proved insufficient to satisfy the judgment. The court ordered foreclosure of the charging order lien. Notice of the sale of the transferable interest was posted at the courthouse door. The buyer acquired only the economic interest and did not become a partner.
Redemption After Foreclosure Sale
Anika Anand lost her home at a foreclosure sale conducted by Apex Dynamics. State law granted a statutory redemption period. Notice of the sale had been posted at the courthouse door. Anika Anand tendered the sale price plus interest and costs within the statutory window. The purchaser took title subject to the redemption right until the period expired.
Constitutional Claim Notice Posting
Alfred Ashford brought a damages action against federal agents for an alleged unlawful search. The court required public notice of a related judicial sale of seized property. The notice was posted at the courthouse door. The posting satisfied the procedural requirement for informing interested parties of the sale date and location.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971)
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx.
The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search.
Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct.
The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
Argonaut Shipping challenged a foreclosure sale on standing grounds. The mortgagee had posted the required sale notice at the courthouse door. The court examined whether the plaintiff had standing to contest the proceeding. The notice posting met the statutory location requirement regardless of the standing determination.
Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc.454 U.S. 464 (1982)
In 1942 the Department of the Army acquired approximately 181 acres northwest of Philadelphia and constructed the Valley Forge General Hospital on the site.
The hospital provided medical care to members of the Armed Forces for the next thirty years. In April 1973 the Secretary of Defense proposed closing the installation as part of a plan to reduce the number of military facilities in the United States, after which the General Services Administration declared the property surplus.
In August 1976 the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conveyed a 77-acre tract of the former hospital grounds to petitioner Valley Forge Christian College. The appraised value of the tract at the time of transfer was $577,500, but the Secretary applied a 100 percent public benefit allowance that allowed the college to take title without any cash payment. The deed conveyed the land in fee simple subject to conditions subsequent that required the college to use the property for thirty years solely for the educational purposes described in its application.
Valley Forge Christian College is a nonprofit educational institution operating under the supervision of the Assemblies of God. Its stated purpose is to offer systematic collegiate training to men and women for Christian service as ministers or laymen, and its degree programs are designed to train leaders for church-related ministries. Faculty members must have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and be living consistent Christian lives, and all members of the college administration must be affiliated with the Assemblies of God.
In September 1976 respondents Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., a nonprofit organization with approximately 90,000 taxpayer members, and four of its employees learned of the conveyance through a news release. Two months later they filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, later transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking a declaration that the conveyance was null and void and an order requiring the college to return the property to the United States.
The District Court granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint, finding that respondents lacked standing as taxpayers and had failed to allege any actual or concrete injury beyond a generalized grievance common to all taxpayers. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed by a divided vote. It held that respondents possessed standing as citizens claiming injury in fact to their shared individuated right to a government that shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1981.
Where must notice of a foreclosure sale be posted under traditional rules?
Notice must be posted at the courthouse door or in direct proximity to it on a bulletin board regularly used for legal notices. Some statutes require actual placement on the door itself.
Does posting at the courthouse door satisfy notice requirements when junior lienholders are omitted from the foreclosure action?
Posting satisfies the location requirement for public notice. Omission of necessary parties such as junior lienholders may still prevent extinguishment of their interests even when the posting location is correct.
Supporting sources
How does the courthouse-door posting requirement interact with statutory redemption rights?
The posting provides public notice of the sale that triggers the redemption period. Where statutory redemption exists the purchaser takes subject to the right until the period expires.
Supporting sources
488 A.2d 858 (Del. 1985)
…was effectively amended to give the Board freedom to put Trans Union up for auctionsale to the highest bidder; or (b) that a public auction was in fact permitted to occur. The minutes of the Board meeting make no reference to any of this. Indeed, the record compels the conclusion that the directors had no rational basis for…