Oct 8, 2026

There has been an important update concerning the administration of Philadelphia Sheriff’s sales. Philadelphia Sheriff Rochelle Bilal (“Sheriff Bilal”) was unable to amicably reach terms for voluntary court-ordered supervision and investigation into her office as decided in August. The breakdown resulted in Sheriff Bilal’s attorney submitting on September 29, 2026, a Memorandum in Support of her Objection to the Rule to Show Cause dated May 13, 2026 (the “Filing”). The Court subsequently required her to testify (something she had not done until this point). Part of agreed-upon terms made in connection with the court-ordered supervision and investigation previously relieved her from the burden of testifying. Sheriff Bilal’s testimony revealed that there is approximately $20 million in undistributed Sheriff’s sale proceeds. The outcome could affect the level of Court oversight of the Sheriff’s Office and the administration of Sheriff’s sales. This can include, but is not limited to, the processing of deeds and distributions.

Four substantive points are made in the Filing:
•  Standing: The Sheriff argues that the party seeking enforcement cannot enforce the 2003 Consent Order because it was not a party to the underlying action and lacks the required contractual privity.
•  Application of the 2003 Order: The Sheriff argues that the Order terminated with the former Sheriff’s tenure because it concerns governmental functions. The current Sheriff remains independently subject to the laws governing Sheriff’s sales.
•  Scope of Mandamus: The Sheriff argues that mandamus cannot control discretionary authority, including staffing and funding decisions. The filing also challenges proposed outside supervision, an advisory committee, and a court-ordered audit.
•  Contempt: Alternatively, the Sheriff argues that enforcement would be limited to contempt remedies and that the requirements for civil contempt have not been established.

As a result, Sheriff Bilal asked the Court not to enforce the 2003 Consent Order or impose the proposed relief. Following Sheriff Bilal’s testimony and the parties’ briefing, the Court reserved decision.

We will continue to keep you updated with new developments on this matter.

DISCLAIMER

This publication may constitute attorney advertising under the laws and rules of professional conduct of one or more states. The information provided in this publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The contents are not intended to be a substitute for professional legal advice, consultation, or representation. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading or relying on this publication. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Readers should consult a qualified attorney for advice regarding their individual circumstances or any specific legal questions they may have.

If you have questions about this publication, please contact Adam Friedman, Ralph Vartolo or Michael DeRosa,
Friedman Vartolo LLP, 1325 Franklin Avenue, Suite 160, Garden City, NY 11530, Phone: (212) 471-5100 | Fax: (212) 471-5150.