Fuentes v. Shevin

407 U.S. 67 (1972) · Supreme Court of the United States · October 10, 1972 · No. Nos. 70-5039 and 70-5138

Summary

The Supreme Court held that Florida and Pennsylvania prejudgment replevin procedures violated the Fourteenth Amendment because they permitted state-authorized seizure of property without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The Court concluded that possessory interests in household goods are protected property interests and that a prior hearing is generally required before deprivation, absent extraordinary circumstances involving an important governmental or public interest.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Writing for the Court
Justice Stewart; Chief Justice Burger; Justice Brennan; Justice Douglas; Justice Marshall; Justice White; Justice Blackmun
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
October 10, 1972
Docket number
Nos. 70-5039 and 70-5138
Procedural posture
Consolidated appeals from judgments of three-judge federal district courts upholding the constitutionality of Florida and Pennsylvania prejudgment replevin procedures.
Standard of review
De novo review of the constitutional validity of state prejudgment replevin procedures.
Precedential value
Binding Supreme Court precedent
Parties
Margarita Fuentes, Paul Parham, Ellen Parham, Epps, Rosa Washington v. Robert L. Shevin, Attorney General of Florida, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Sears, Roebuck & Co., Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Cortese
Disposition
vacated

Topics

procedural due processdue processfourteenth amendmentconsumer protectioncivil procedure

Practice areas

constitutional lawcivil procedureconsumer protectionremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Florida and Pennsylvania prejudgment replevin procedures violate the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting state-authorized seizure of property without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  2. Whether temporary or nonfinal seizure of personal property constitutes a deprivation protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
  3. Whether possessory interests in household goods, despite disputed title or alleged contractual default, are protected property interests.
  4. Whether conditional-sales provisions stating that a seller may repossess goods upon default waive the buyer's constitutional right to a prior hearing.

Holdings

  1. Florida and Pennsylvania prejudgment replevin provisions violate the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as they permit state agents to seize chattels from a possessor without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.
  2. A temporary, nonfinal seizure of property is nevertheless a deprivation within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and generally must be preceded by a prior hearing.
  3. A person's significant possessory interest in personal property is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment even when the person lacks undisputed title and the ultimate right to possession is contested.
  4. Contractual language stating that a seller may take back, retake, or repossess merchandise upon default did not clearly waive the buyer's constitutional right to a prior hearing.

Key quotations

Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified. (80)
That the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver, and is not fixed in form does not affect its root requirement that an individual be given an opportunity for a hearing before he is deprived of any significant property interest, except for extraordinary situations where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event. (82)
due process is afforded only by the kinds of 'notice' and 'hearing' that are aimed at establishing the validity, or at least the probable validity, of the underlying claim against the alleged debtor before he can be deprived of his property (97)

Factual background

Fuentes purchased a stove and stereo from Firestone under conditional sales contracts that gave her possession while she made installment payments. After a dispute concerning servicing and alleged payment default, Firestone obtained a Florida writ of replevin ex parte, and a sheriff seized the goods before Fuentes received notice or an opportunity to be heard. In the Pennsylvania cases, installment-sale buyers and Rosa Washington likewise had property seized under ex parte writs without a prior hearing. The statutes generally required only an ex parte application and bond, with a post-seizure hearing or counterbond procedure.

Procedural history

Fuentes challenged in federal district court Florida's procedure allowing a clerk to issue a prejudgment writ of replevin without prior notice or hearing. The Pennsylvania appellants brought a similar constitutional challenge after personal property was seized under Pennsylvania's ex parte replevin process. The district courts upheld the statutes, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and reviewed both judgments.

Remand instructions

The judgments of the district courts were vacated, and the cases were remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. The Court left the precise form of constitutionally sufficient prior hearings for legislation and further proceedings.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…