Judicial and Nonjudicial Foreclosure

In some states, particularly those where only judicial foreclosure is available, the constitutional issue of due process has affected the ability of some lenders to foreclose. In Ohio, the federal district court for the Northern District of Ohio has dismissed numerous foreclosure actions by lenders because of the inability of the alleged lender to prove that they are the real party in interest. In June 2008, a Colorado district court judge also dismissed a foreclosure action because of failure of the alleged lender to prove they were the real party in interest.

In contrast, in six federal judicials aspect and the majority of nonjudicial foreclosure states (like California), due process has already been judicially determined to be a frivolous defense. The entire point of nonjudicial foreclosure is that there is no state actor (i.e., a court) involved. The constitutional right of due process protects people only from violations of their civil rights by state actors, not private actors. A further rationale is that under the principle of freedom of contract, if debtors wish to enjoy the additional protection of the formalities of judicial foreclosure, it is their burden to find a lender willing to provide a loan secured by a traditional conventional mortgage instead of a deed of trust with a power of sale. The difficulty in finding such a lender in nonjudicial foreclosure states is not the state's problem. Courts have also rejected as frivolous the argument that the mere legislative act of authorizing the nonjudicial foreclosure process thereby transforms the process itself into state action.

In turn, since there is no right to due process in nonjudicial foreclosure, it has been held that it is irrelevant whether the borrower had actual notice (i.e., subjective awareness) of the foreclosure, as long as the foreclosure trustee performed the tasks prescribed by statute in an attempt to give notice.