A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Fuentes v. Shevin, and two recent Washington Court of Appeals decisions, Lucas v. Stapp and Seattle Credit Bureau v. Hibbitt, held that except in extraordinary situations the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before any significant property interest can be seized by actions involving government officials. Under these cases, Washington's attachment, garnishment, and replevin statutes appear to be unconstitutional insofar as they provide for prejudgment seizure of a defendant's property without prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. This note will analyze the impact of the recent due process decisions on Washington's attachment, garnishment, and replevin statutes and discuss possible legislative solutions to the due process requirements.
P. A. G.,
Constitutional Law—Creditor-Debtor Law: Procedural Due Process and Washington's Prejudgment Seizure Procedures—Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972),
48 Wash. L. Rev.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol48/iss3/8