Opinion ID: 2784605
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 751, 753 (D.C. 1983) (en banc)).

Text: 10 non-judicial foreclosure process. Judicial sales under § 42-816, however, are wholly different from non-judicial foreclosures because of the court’s involvement in the process, which reduces the risk of error and predatory foreclosure practices. Therefore, § 42-816 authorizes the court to order a judicial sale and there is no mediation requirement. In this case, Advance Bank filed its third amended complaint alleging breach of contract, judicial foreclosure, and/or judicial sale in the alternative. The court granted the motion for summary judgment finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact that Rogers defaulted on the loan or to the amount he owed. As to the judicial sale under § 42-816, the court found that a mediation certificate was not required before exercising its statutory authority. We agree that the medication requirement expressed in § 42-815 is not applicable to judicial sales pursuant to § 42-816. Therefore, the trial judge correctly granted the motion for summary judgment. Rogers argues that granting a judicial sale circumvents the requirements set forth in § 42-815 et. seq., particularly the mediation requirement. This argument fails to take into account the protections provided by § 42-816 through the court’s role in the foreclosure process. Although mediation is not required for a judicial 11 sale, there exists judicial oversight, which embodies the Council’s intent in amending § 42-815 (b) to include the mediation requirement. In any event, Rogers was provided with the same protections of § 42-815 because the parties participated in a court-ordered mediation in addition to the protections provided by § 42-816. We conclude that judicial sales pursuant to § 42-816 are not a means for bypassing the requirements in § 42-815, but are only alternative procedures for lenders seeking action with the court for a defaulted mortgage loan. Finally, Rogers argues that judicial sales under § 42-816 only apply to commercial mortgages. He cites no authority in support of that argument and there is no basis, in the statute itself or in the legislative history, for concluding that the Council intended any such limitation on judicial sales. The fact that § 42-816 was repealed by the “Protections from Predatory Lending and Mortgage Foreclosure Improvements Act of 2000,” then revived by the “Home Loan Protection Act of 2002” also provides support for our conclusion that it is applicable to residential mortgages. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.