Fuentes v. Shevin
407 U.S. 67 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that an individual be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before the state authorizes its agents to seize their property through a writ of replevin, except in extraordinary situations.
Facts:
- Margarita Fuentes purchased a gas stove and a stereo from Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. under conditional sales contracts, which provided that Firestone retained title until the full price was paid.
- After making payments for over a year, with about $200 remaining on a total cost of over $600, a dispute arose between Fuentes and Firestone concerning the servicing of the stove.
- Firestone, claiming Fuentes had defaulted, obtained a writ of replevin under Florida law by filling out a form and posting a security bond, without any prior notice to Fuentes or a hearing.
- A local deputy sheriff and a Firestone agent went to Fuentes's home and seized the stove and stereo.
- In a separate case in Pennsylvania, three appellants had household goods seized under similar installment contracts and replevin procedures.
- A fourth Pennsylvania appellant, Rosa Washington, had her son's clothes, furniture, and toys seized by her estranged ex-husband, a deputy sheriff, who used the state's replevin process during a custody dispute.
Procedural Posture:
- Firestone instituted a replevin action in a Florida small-claims court and obtained a writ of replevin.
- Margarita Fuentes filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, challenging the constitutionality of the state's prejudgment replevin law.
- A three-judge panel of the District Court was convened and upheld the constitutionality of the Florida statute.
- Separately, appellants in Pennsylvania filed a similar action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- A three-judge panel of that District Court also upheld the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania statute.
- The appellants in both cases appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which noted probable jurisdiction over both appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do state replevin statutes that authorize the summary seizure of a person's property without providing the possessor with prior notice and an opportunity to be heard violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Stewart
Yes, these state replevin statutes violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Procedural due process requires an opportunity for a hearing before the state authorizes the seizure of property from a person's possession. The right to notice and an opportunity to be heard is fundamental to protecting an individual's use and possession of property from arbitrary encroachment. While a post-seizure hearing might undo a wrongful taking, it cannot erase the fact that an arbitrary deprivation has already occurred. Possessory interests in property, even for goods not considered 'necessities of life' and where title is not fully owned, are significant property interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Contractual clauses allowing a seller to 'retake' merchandise upon default do not constitute a clear and intelligent waiver of the constitutional right to a prior hearing.
Dissenting - Justice White
No, these state replevin statutes do not violate the Due Process Clause. In a typical installment sale, both the seller and buyer have property interests at stake, and the state laws represent a constitutional accommodation of these conflicting interests. The likelihood of a mistaken claim of default by a creditor is not substantial enough to justify a broad constitutional requirement for a pre-seizure hearing, as creditors have a strong financial incentive to avoid erroneous repossessions. The majority's holding will have little practical impact beyond increasing the cost and reducing the availability of credit, as creditors can simply revise their contracts to include an explicit waiver of a pre-seizure hearing. The Court should defer to the judgment of state legislatures and the Uniform Commercial Code, which have determined these procedures are appropriate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly expanded procedural due process protections by invalidating common state replevin statutes. It clarified that any significant deprivation of a property interest, not just 'necessities' like wages from Sniadach, triggers the right to a prior hearing. The ruling established a strong presumption in favor of pre-deprivation hearings, forcing states to redraft laws governing creditor remedies to include notice and an opportunity to be heard before property is seized. The case set a high bar for waiving these due process rights, requiring that any such waiver be explicit, voluntary, intelligent, and knowing, which standard form consumer contracts are unlikely to meet.
Unlock the full brief for Fuentes v. Shevin