Opinion ID: 1989304
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Due Process Challenge to Sheriff's Sale Procedures

Text: Finally, Braunstein contends that Pa.R.C.P. 3132 fails to afford a judgment debtor due process in direct violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Braunstein argues that because the rule only provides relief if a petition to set aside a sale is filed before delivery of the personal property, and delivery is effectively made simultaneously with the sale, it is physically impossible for the judgment debtor to protect himself using Rule 3132, under the system of sale and delivery applicable to the Sheriff of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Braunstein further notes that the sale occurred on February 3, 1988, but that the Sheriff's special return was not dated until February 8, 1988, approximately three days after Braunstein filed his motion to set aside the sale. We find Braunstein's contention that he was denied due process to be without merit. He attended and participated in the bankruptcy court proceedings which resulted in the judgment roll entered into the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County and the subsequent writ of execution. Braunstein and his attorney participated fully in all stages of the proceedings arising from that writ of execution. Nowhere has Braunstein supported his vague assertion that delivery ordinarily occurs simultaneously with sale; importantly, he has not alleged that such occurred here. Indeed, Braunstein has failed to allege any harm or negative effect resulting to him in this case due to the alleged defect in Rule 3132. It is a fundamental principle of constitutional law that a challenge to a statute may not be raised in the abstract, but must find its basis in an injury to the party seeking to have the enactment declared constitutionally infirm. Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334, 342-343, 516 A.2d 1172, 1177 (1986) (collecting cases). Braunstein's abstract due process challenge is therefore rejected.