Fuentes v. Shevin

407 U.S. 67 (1972)

What's Going On?

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review two decisions involving the constitutionality of the respective prejudgment replevin processes of Florida and Pennsylvania, arising out of the seizure of Appellants' goods, which were purchased under installment contracts and subsequently seized without notice or an opportunity for a hearing.

Who's Who?

Appellants :

Margarita Fuentes – (original plaintiff) Florida resident, deprived of property under a writ of replevin; and
[Pennsylvania residents deprived of property under a writ of replevin.]

Appellee    :

Shevin – (original defendant) [Attorney General of Florida; et al.]

Facts:

This case involves the Supreme Court's review of two separate federal district court decisions dealing with the constitutionality of state prejudgment replevin processes. The facts of the first decision are as follows: Appellant Margarita Fuentes purchased a stove and a stereo from the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. under separate conditional sales contracts calling for monthly installment payments. The terms of the contracts left Firestone with the title to the merchandise, but Appellant Fuentes was entitled to possession of the goods as long as she did not default on her installment payments. After over a year, with Appellant Fuentes making the required installment payments, a dispute arose between Appellant Fuentes and Firestone over the servicing of the stove. Firestone brought suit for repossession of the stove and the stereo in small-claims court, claiming that Appellant Fuentes had refused to make her remaining payments. Firestone simultaneously obtained a writ of replevin ordering a sheriff to immediately seize the stove and stereo. Florida procedure only required Firestone to complete and submit a form to the clerk of small-claims court before the writ of replevin was issued. The stove and stereo were seized before Appellant Fuentes had received a summons to answer to Firestone's complaint. [Appellant Fuentes challenged the constitutionality of Florida's prejudgment replevin process in federal district court.] The second decision arose out of similar facts in Pennsylvania. Neither Appellant Fuentes nor the Pennsylvania appellants were successful in challenging the state replevin processes.

Issue:

May a party be deprived of a protected property interest without notice and opportunity to be heard?

Decision:

No. Under the Florida replevin statute, a party may obtain a writ of replevin merely by initiating an action for repossession stating that he is lawfully entitled to possession of the property, and posting a bond for double the value of the property to be seized. An officer carrying out the writ may seize the property against the will of the party in possession. The party in possession has no prior notice of the writ of replevin, nor any opportunity to contest it. The only recourse afforded the party in possession is the opportunity to post a bond to reclaim possession of the property. Due process requires that a party whose rights are to be affected is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard, both of which must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Therefore, in the case of repossession, the right to notice and a hearing must be granted prior to the deprivation at issue—while it can still be prevented. The Florida and Pennsylvania replevin statutes violate this requirement. The deterrent effect of requiring the party seeking the writ to post a bond is no replacement for the right to a prior hearing that is the only truly effective safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of property. The fact that the Appellants lacked full title to the property of which they were deprived, and had not fully paid for the property, does not make the replevin proper. A possessory interest in property is within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court has allowed summary seizure of property in extraordinary situations, such as to support the national war effort, or to protect the public from misbranded drugs and contaminated food; however, the Florida and Pennsylvania replevin statutes serve no such important governmental or general public interest. The terms of the conditional sales contracts signed by Appellants did provide for repossession of the goods, but there is no evidence that Appellants were made aware that the fine print in the contracts amounted to the waiver of constitutional rights. The judgments of the district courts therefore are vacated and remanded

Basic Rule:

In situations involving the deprivation of a property interest, the due process right to notice and an opportunity to be heard must be granted at a time when the deprivation can still be prevented.

Terms:

Replevin :

An action to recover personal property wrongfully taken or held by the defendant.

Home  |  Briefs  |  Glossary  |  Contact Us