Connecticut v. Doehr

Facts

On March 15, 1988, DiGiovanni applied to the Connecticut Superior Court for an attachment (a court order placing a hold on property before the suit is decided) in the amount of $75,000 on Doehr's home in Meriden, Connecticut. He was seeking to bring a civil action against Doehr for assault and battery. That suit did not involve Doehr's real estate, and DiGiovanni had no pre-existing interest in Doehr's home or in any of his other property. Connecticut law let a judge allow an attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing for the owner, on a sworn statement of probable cause. It did not require the plaintiff to post a bond. DiGiovanni's affidavit had five one-sentence paragraphs. It said that Doehr had assaulted him, that the assault broke his left wrist and injured his right eye, and that he had spent money on medical care. A Superior Court judge found probable cause and ordered the attachment to the value of $75,000. The sheriff attached the property on March 21. Only after that did Doehr receive notice of the attachment. He had not yet been served with the complaint. The notice told him he could seek a hearing to contest probable cause, ask for the attachment to be vacated, modified or dismissed or a bond substituted, or claim that part of the property was exempt.

Issues

1. Does a Connecticut statute that allows prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of exigent circumstances, and without a bond satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied here?
2. What test decides how much process is due when a private plaintiff uses a state prejudgment remedy statute to encumber another person's property?

Holding

As applied here, the Connecticut statute violates due process. It allowed attachment of Doehr's home on a plaintiff's affidavit with no prior notice or hearing and no showing of exigent circumstances, though the plaintiff had no existing interest in the property.