No. 19-81
Vivian L. Rader, et vir v. Citibank, N.A., et al.
Response Waived
Tags: due-process equal-protection foreclosure-procedure fourteenth-amendment non-judicial-foreclosure property-rights standing takings
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FourthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw DueProcess FourthAmendment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is Colorado's system of non-judicial foreclosure unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Is Colorado’s system of non-judicial foreclosure (Co. Rev. Stat. §38-38-101 (2016) in conjunction with Rule 120) unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it provides no pre-taking means for a homeowner to discover facts and/or present relevant evidence to determine if the party foreclosing on the property is the holder of the note?
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2019-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent Citibank, N.A., et al. to respond filed.
2019-07-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 15, 2019)
Attorneys
Citibank, N.A., et al.
Cynthia Dawn Lowery-Graber — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP, Respondent
Cynthia Dawn Lowery-Graber — Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, LLP, Respondent
Vivian L. Rader, et al.
David John Schmidt Madgett — MADGETT & KLEIN, PLLC, Petitioner
David John Schmidt Madgett — MADGETT & KLEIN, PLLC, Petitioner