Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co.

Background

On February 2, 1972, a retail company that sold appliances on installments sued a customer for $574.17 for a refrigerator, range, stereo, and washing machine. The seller alleged a vendor’s lien and obtained a judge-signed writ of sequestration ex parte after filing an affidavit and posting a bond of $1,125; the goods were taken into custody. The buyer moved to dissolve the writ; Louisiana courts denied relief and the case reached the Supreme Court.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether a judge-authorized, ex parte seizure without prior notice violated the Fourteenth Amendment. It said both buyer and seller had real property interests under state law and that Louisiana’s statutes require a verified showing of specific facts, judicial authorization in Orleans Parish, bonds to protect the buyer, and an immediate right to move to dissolve the writ. Given those safeguards and the need to prevent waste, concealment, or transfer of consumer goods, the Court held the procedure reasonably balanced interests and satisfied due process.

Real world impact

Credit sellers can use Louisiana sequestration to protect unpaid balances by securing temporary possession of goods when default appears likely. Buyers may lose immediate use of household items but can quickly seek a hearing, post bond to regain possession, and recover damages if seizure proves wrongful. The ruling is not necessarily a final merits decision and depends on the statutory safeguards described by the Court.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring Justice said Fuentes v. Shevin had been too broad and agreed the Louisiana statute struck a fair balance; a dissenting Justice argued the seizure here was indistinguishable from Fuentes and would have required prior notice and a hearing.