In Sniadach v. Family Finance Corporation, the Court effectively held that a summary creditor proceeding amounted to a taking of property without due process of law. This Note examines the summary creditor remedy. After Sniadach, concerted judicial attacks, like those on California’s claim and delivery statutes, and prejudgment attachment proceedings, were made on summary creditor remedies resulting in a broad reading of Sniadach. However, legislatures began enacting exceptions to Sniadach’s rule, such as requiring that seizures benefit the public, be immediate in nature, and have no affect on another’s livelihood. The next case to reach the Supreme Court, Fuentes v. Shevin, was born out of this discord between the legislatures and the courts. Fuentes clarified many issues the Court left ambiguous in Sniadach, but ignored private extrajudicial repossession procedures. Thus, extrajudicial repossession procedures have taken center stage in district courts (such as Adams v. Egley in San Diego District Court). The author concludes that many questions about summary creditor remedies are left to be resolved by the legislatures and courts.
Patricia D. Benke,
Summary Creditor Remedies: Going…Going…Gone?,
San Diego L. Rev.
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol10/iss2/6