Shaumyan v. O'NEILL
1989 WL 71993, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7142, 716 F. Supp. 65 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute authorizing ex parte prejudgment attachment of real property does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause if it provides for judicial oversight and a prompt, meaningful post-attachment hearing, even without requiring the plaintiff to post a bond.
Facts:
- Sidetex Company, Incorporated performed home improvements on property owned by Sebastian and Maria Shaumyan.
- Unhappy with the quality of the work, the Shaumyans refused to make full payment to Sidetex.
- In response, Sidetex's attorney, Stephen Rolnick, brought a breach of contract suit against the Shaumyans in state court.
- During the lawsuit, Rolnick used Connecticut General Statutes § 52-278e(a)(1) to obtain a prejudgment attachment on the Shaumyans' real property without a prior hearing.
- In a separate matter, New Haven Firefighters Credit Union sued Edward Cacace for defaulting on a promissory note.
- The Credit Union's attorney, Shawn Mark O’Neill, also used § 52-278e(a)(1) to secure an ex parte prejudgment attachment on real property owned by Cacace.
Procedural Posture:
- Sidetex Company sued Sebastian and Maria Shaumyan in Connecticut state court for breach of contract.
- New Haven Firefighters Credit Union sued Edward Cacace in Connecticut state court for default on a promissory note.
- The Shaumyans and Cacace filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against the companies and their attorneys.
- The plaintiffs challenged the facial constitutionality of Connecticut's ex parte real property attachment statute.
- Both the plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Connecticut statute, § 52-278e(a)(1), which permits a plaintiff to obtain an ex parte prejudgment attachment on a defendant's real property without prior notice or a showing of extraordinary circumstances, violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Nevas, District Judge.
No, Connecticut's ex parte real property attachment statute, § 52-278e(a)(1), does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that while a non-possessory attachment of real estate is a significant property deprivation implicating due process, the Connecticut statutory scheme provides sufficient procedural safeguards to be constitutional. Applying the three-part balancing test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the court found that the private interest affected (the owner's ability to alienate or mortgage property) is less severe than a physical seizure of personal property. The risk of erroneous deprivation is minimized by several 'saving characteristics' of the statute: (1) judicial approval is required based on a sworn, factual affidavit establishing probable cause; (2) the defendant is entitled to an 'expeditious' post-attachment hearing where the plaintiff bears the burden of proof; (3) the defendant can substitute a bond to release the attachment; (4) the defendant receives notice of these rights; and (5) a ruling on the attachment is immediately appealable. The court held these safeguards create a constitutional accommodation of the competing interests of debtors and creditors, even without a mandatory creditor bond requirement. For the equal protection claim, the court applied rational basis review, finding the distinction between the treatment of real and personal property is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of providing creditors a means to secure potential judgments, especially given that a real estate attachment is generally less burdensome than a seizure of personalty.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test to non-possessory prejudgment attachments of real property. It establishes that a pre-attachment hearing is not an absolute due process requirement if a robust set of post-attachment procedural safeguards exists. By upholding the statute without a mandatory creditor bond, the ruling suggests that the overall statutory scheme's fairness is more critical than any single procedural element. This provides a framework for lower courts to evaluate the constitutionality of similar prejudgment remedy statutes by focusing on the cumulative effect of available safeguards like judicial oversight and prompt post-deprivation hearings.
