Court Opinion

ID: 9484241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 09:45:08.795609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:06.547264
License: Public Domain

GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I join in the affirmance and in all of Judge Higginbotham’s cogent opinion except only part III A thereof. While I agree that Champlin’s subordinated lien was a sufficient property interest to trigger due process, I have grave reservations about extending Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 103 S.Ct. 2706, 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983) so far as to invalidate as to Champlin USX’s foreclosure sale under the circumstances here. Perhaps we have already gone this far in Davis Oil Co. v. Mills, 873 F.2d 774 (5th Cir.1989); Small Engine Shop, Inc. v. Cascio, 878 F.2d 883 (5th Cir.1989); and Sterling v. Block, 953 F.2d 198 (5th Cir.1992), but I would leave that question open until necessary for decision. For the reasons so well explained by Judge Higginbotham, even if there were a Mennonite violation neither Champlin nor Gladstone has any valid grounds to complain of the judgment below, and USX may not do so as it has not appealed.