{"id":531,"date":"2015-06-05T19:22:00","date_gmt":"2015-06-05T19:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/?p=531"},"modified":"2023-12-21T17:16:24","modified_gmt":"2023-12-21T17:16:24","slug":"postforeclosure-judicial-process-satisfies-due-process-clause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/2015\/06\/05\/postforeclosure-judicial-process-satisfies-due-process-clause\/","title":{"rendered":"Postforeclosure judicial process satisfies due process clause"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The Sixth Circuit has ruled that nonjudicial foreclosure satisfies constitutional due process requirements because\u00a0the homeowner\/borrower was given notice of the foreclosure and notice of who to cure the default or seek a loan modification and how to redeem the property (get it back) after the foreclosure sale during a six-month redemption period.\u00a0<a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" href=\"http:\/\/cases.justia.com\/federal\/appellate-courts\/ca6\/14-1687\/14-1687-2015-04-07.pdf?ts=1428418857\" target=\"_blank\">Garcia v.\u00a0Fed. Nat&#8217;l Mortg. Ass&#8217;n,\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0782 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2015). These statutory procedures satisfied the constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of a property right.<\/p>\n\n\n<div class=\"taxonomy-category wp-block-post-terms\"><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/consumer-protection\/\" rel=\"tag\">Consumer Protection<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/due-process\/\" rel=\"tag\">Due Process<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/mortgages\/\" rel=\"tag\">Mortgages<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/real-estate-transactions\/\" rel=\"tag\">Real Estate Transactions<\/a><span class=\"wp-block-post-terms__separator\">, <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/category\/title-issues\/\" rel=\"tag\">Title Issues<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Sixth Circuit has ruled that nonjudicial foreclosure satisfies constitutional due process requirements because\u00a0the homeowner\/borrower was given notice of the foreclosure and notice of who to cure the default or seek a loan modification and how to redeem the property (get it back) after the foreclosure sale during a six-month redemption period.\u00a0Garcia v.\u00a0Fed. Nat&#8217;l Mortg. Ass&#8217;n,\u00a0\u00a0782 F.3d 736 (6th Cir. 2015). These statutory procedures satisfied the constitutional right to notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of a property right.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9,52,34,10,37],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-531","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-consumer-protection","category-due-process","category-mortgages","category-real-estate-transactions","category-title-issues"],"featured_image_src":null,"featured_image_src_square":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"jsinger","author_link":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/author\/jsinger\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=531"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/faculty.law.harvard.edu\/joseph-singer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}