A sale regularly adjourned is, when made, in effect the sale of which previous notice had been given." Dexter v. Sherpard, 117 Mass. 480.
In Fitzgerald v. The First National Bank of Boston, 46 Mass.App.Ct. 98, —N.E.2d— (1998) it was said:
It has long been accepted practice in Massachusetts that, while details of the initial auction must be provided by written notice to the appropriate parties and published in a newspaper in accordance with G.L.c. 244, §§11-17B, a postponement of the sale may be announced by public proclamation to those present at the auction site . . . .
The plaintiffs rely . . . on In re Reubeck [citation omitted], in which the Bankruptcy Court judge, while acknowledging that there was no State law requirement for noticing continuances, ruled that new advertisements and written notices of each continuance were necessary to conform to the Bankruptcy Code . . . . [H]owever, Ruebeck's relevance has been undermined by Resolution Trust Corp v. Carr, 13 F3rd 425, 431 (1 st Cir 1993), which declined to apply the "Reubeck rule" in a nonbankruptcy case . . . .
We decline to adopt the notice requirements of Reubeck for the adjournment of a foreclosure sale conducted under State statutory and decisional law.