Fuentes v.

Shevin
Facts: Fuentes (Plaintiff) acquired a gas stove and stereophonic phonograph with
service insurance from Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. under a conditional sales
contract requiring $500 in monthly payments and extra financing fees of over
$100. Under the terms of the payment plan contract, Firestone maintained
ownership, but Fuentes was permitted to use the property until she fell behind on
payments. Due to Fuentes' failure to make the monthly payments, Firestone filed a
repossession case in state court after a disagreement over the maintenance of the
stove. With barely $200 left, Firestone filed a petition for repossession in small
claims court and got an order of replevin. Prior to Plaintiff receiving the summons
to respond to Firestone's case, Firestone secured a writ of replevin directing the
sheriff to immediately take the disputed items. Plaintiff challenged the validity of
Florida's processes under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The
contested Florida legislation does not require the applicant to provide a
"convincing demonstration" prior to the seizure of the contested commodities. The
Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on Fourteenth Amendment
grounds.

Issue: Does the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no state shall deprive any
person of property without due process of law apply to state replevin legislation
that fails to give property owners notice and a chance to contest the seizure of their
property?

Rule: Statutes that deprive persons of their property prior to judgment must
conform with procedural due process.
Application: The court ruled that the Florida legislation under which the Plaintiff's
property was confiscated failed on all three points. First, the confiscation was
immediately essential to protect a vital government or public interest. Second,
there was a particular need for rapid response. Thirdly, the State had maintained
tight control over its monopoly of lawful force; the individual initiating the seizure
was a government official charged with judging, based on the norms of a precisely
drafted legislation, that it was necessary and justifiable in the specific case.

Conclusion: Inverted, in Fuentes' advantage. The Supreme Court did not challenge
the state's authority to confiscate property prior to a final judgment in order to
preserve the security interests of creditors, so long as those creditors had
established their claim to the property via a fair earlier hearing. Moreover, the type
and format of such preliminary hearings are properly susceptible to a variety of
prospective adjustments and are, at present time, a matter for law and not
adjudication.