Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Shaumyan v. O'Neill

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1993 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDue ProcessPrejudgment Attachment42 U.S.C. § 1983prejudgment attachmentdue processreal propertycreditor-debtor dispute

Facts

The Shaumyans contracted with Sidetex to repair and improve their home, including siding, storm windows, doors, and shutters, and later signed a change order for replacement storm windows. After Sidetex completed the work, the Shaumyans refused to pay $3,900 remaining on the original contract and $1,800 on the change order. Sidetex's attorney obtained an ex parte prejudgment attachment on the Shaumyans' home under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-278e(a)(1) by submitting an affidavit of probable cause and a complaint to a judge. Sidetex later obtained a post-hearing attachment, and the state court ultimately entered judgment for Sidetex on its contract claim for $5,700.

Issue

Whether Connecticut's prejudgment attachment statute, which permits attachment of real property without a predeprivation hearing and without requiring the plaintiff to post a security bond, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as applied to this debtor-creditor breach of contract dispute involving labor and materials furnished to improve the attached property.

Rule

Under the Mathews v. Eldridge framework as applied in Connecticut v. Doehr, the constitutionality of a prejudgment attachment procedure depends on an as-applied balancing of: (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation and the value of additional safeguards, and (3) the plaintiff's interest in the attachment. In a breach of contract dispute over a sum certain for labor and materials furnished to improve the attached real property, where the claim is readily documented and the plaintiff has a substantial pre-existing interest analogous to an unperfected mechanic's lien, due process does not require either a predeprivation hearing or a security bond.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Hartford, Connecticut, Nora Feld hired Beacon Crest Masonry, a fictional contractor, to rebuild her front steps and retaining wall. After the work was completed, Nora refused to pay the final $8,200 invoice, and Beacon Crest obtained an ex parte attachment on her house by submitting the signed contract, invoices, and an affidavit of probable cause to a judge under a statute that allows prompt postattachment review but no preattachment hearing.

If Nora brings a due process challenge, which argument is strongest under the governing doctrine?

Explanation. The controlling rule is an as-applied Mathews/Doehr analysis. Although attachment of a home affects significant property interests, the risk of erroneous deprivation is comparatively low when the claim is a documented contract debt for a sum certain, and the plaintiff has a substantial pre-existing interest because its labor and materials improved the very property attached, analogous to an unperfected mechanic's lien. In that setting, due process does not require a predeprivation hearing.