In 2006, the Mirjafaris began to fall behind on their mortgage payments and the property was sold at a foreclosure auction in February 2007. The Mirjafaris filed exceptions to the sale, arguing that the advertisements for the sale violated the time requirements set out in MD. RULES 8-422 and 8-423, and that the ads did not note several important facts about the property, such as the number of existing buildings and its zoning designation.

The Mirjafaris' exceptions were overruled by the Circuit Court for Harford County; therefore, they filed an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. In the meantime, the third-party purchaser settled on the property, paid the balance of the purchase price, and recorded the deed. The Mirjafaris did not obtain a supersedeas bond, nor did they ask for alternatives to such a bond. The Court of Special Appeals held that the third-party's bona fide purchaser status attached at the time of the sale; therefore, it was irrelevant that the third-party purchaser later learned of the exceptions. The Court of Appeals of Maryland agreed, holding that it would be contrary to law and public policy for the bona fide purchaser status not to attach at the foreclosure sale.

The Court of Appeals held that a finding that bona fide purchaser status, for determination of whether an appeal bond or security is required to stay the effect of the judgment ratifying the report of sale, is determined at the time of settlement would undercut the purpose of the supersedeas bond requirement. The purpose of the supersedeas bond requirement is to encourage bidding at foreclosure sales. At least one of the judges who joined in the Court of Appeals' concurrence felt that this was bad public policy.