Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Civil Procedure
Civil ProcedureDue ProcessPrejudgment ReplevinFourteenth Amendmentdue processnoticeopportunity to be heardprior hearing
Facts
Florida and Pennsylvania statutes allowed a private party to obtain a writ of replevin through an ex parte application, with no prior notice to the possessor and no opportunity for the possessor to challenge the seizure before state officers took the goods. In Florida, Firestone used that procedure to seize Margarita Fuentes' stove and stereo bought under conditional sales contracts after claiming default. In Pennsylvania, other appellants had household goods seized under similar installment contracts, and one appellant's former husband obtained a writ to seize a child's clothes, furniture, and toys. In both states, the possessor could regain possession only by posting a counterbond after the seizure.
Issue
Whether Florida and Pennsylvania statutes authorizing prejudgment seizure of goods under writs of replevin, issued ex parte without prior notice or opportunity to be heard, deprive possessors of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule
Except in truly extraordinary situations, due process requires that a person be given notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the State deprives that person of any significant property interest. A prior hearing may be flexible in form, but it must provide a real test of the validity, or at least probable validity, of the claimant's asserted right before seizure occurs.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Phoenix, Arizona, Nora Kim bought a washing machine from Desert Crest Home Supply under an installment contract that let her keep possession while payments were due. After a billing dispute, the company filed a sworn form with a court clerk, posted a bond, and obtained a writ directing the sheriff to seize the machine immediately without notifying Nora first. Arizona law gives Nora a full hearing within a week after the seizure.
If Nora challenges the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the strongest argument?
Explanation. Due process generally requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the State deprives a person of a significant property interest. A later hearing, even a prompt one, does not cure the fact that the deprivation has already occurred. The majority also rejected the idea that a bond substitutes for a prior hearing and held that possessory interests under installment contracts are protected property interests.