Washington Law Review


This comment will explore the interaction of these four major cases, and interpret their composite message to the secured creditor. It initially will analyze the various opinions of Justice White, concentrating particularly on the roles of stare decisis and supremacy in Di- Chem, and of Justice Powell, particularly his emphasis upon distinguishing secured from unsecured transactions. Second, the comment will discuss the three basic remedies available to the secured creditor: the adversary hearing under Fuentes, self-help repossession, and the ex parte procedure under Mitchell. Mitchell's due process balancing analysis is favored as an appropriate compromise between self-help on the one hand and Fuentes' stringent adversary hearing requirement on the other, in the context of secured transactions. Finally, the comment will discuss current developments in this area in Washington, and present a proposed statutory amendment to comport with Mitchell's guidelines.

First Page