Court Opinion

ID: 9790904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:01:08.95144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.543601
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority opinion in this case, and I agree with the rationale that is articulated. I have another concern with respect to Mary Lou Kottcamp’s contentions.
The invocation of a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 depends upon the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, 4 4 *.” I am not aware of any precedent standing for the proposition that a statutory provision authorizing foreclosure of a real estate mortgage pursuant to a power of sale results in the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” Kottcamp has failed to present any such authority in her brief or argument. The essence of Kott-camp’s position is that she was deprived of due process by virtue of the foreclosure sale, and I cannot agree that there occurred any invasion of her constitutional rights.
The thrust of her position simply is that foreclosure pursuant to the power of sale, which was consummated by the sale of the property, resulted in a breach of an agreement by Fleet Real Estate Funding Corporation to accept a deed in full satisfaction of its claims against her. If such a breach of contract did occur, Kottcamp is not left without any remedy for that breach, and her concerns in that regard simply carry no constitutional implications.
I would not reach the question of whether the participation by the sheriff of Fremont County in the foreclosure sale could be equated with action “under color of state law” because there first must occur an invasion of the claimant’s constitutional rights. None occurred here.