Opinion ID: 2200906
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Foreclosure Sale

Text: D.C.Code § 45-715 requires, among other things, that written notice of a foreclosure sale be given to the owner of the property at issue at least thirty days before the sale. [9] The trial court ruled that although notice of the foreclosure sale scheduled for March 9 was given on February 5, that notice was inadequate to meet the statutory requirement for the sale which actually took place on April 5. The court based this conclusion on the fact that the Johnsons were informed, shortly before March 9, that the sale had been canceled, which meant that a new notice had to be given before the property could be sold. Since there was in fact no new notice. [10] the court held that the foreclosure sale was void for non-compliance with section 45-715. See Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Huntley, 573 A.2d 787 (D.C.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 853, 111 S.Ct. 148, 112 L.Ed.2d 114 (1990). Capital City argues that the Johnsons did receive proper notice because a clause in the February notice sent to Mrs. Johnson stated that the sale would be subject to postponement for a period not exceed thirty (30) calendar days from the original date of the foreclosure sale, after which this notice of foreclosure shall expire. Capital City asserts, therefore, that the notice did not expire until thirty days after the scheduled date, i.e., thirty days after March 9. Since we are remanding the case for further proceedings on the indispensable party issue, we decline to rule on the validity of the notice, for that issue may have to be relitigated if MWM (or Mr. McClure) is joined as a party. [11]