Constitutional Law - Due Process - Hearing and Notice Required Prior to Repossession of Chattels under California Commercial Code Sections 9-503 and 9-504 - Adams v. Egley, 338 F.Supp. 614 (S.D. Cal. 1972)

No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Markens, Peter E.
Issue Date
1972
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Alternative Title
Abstract
FIRST PARAGRAPH(S)|Recently two lawsuits were consolidated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In both cases plaintiff-debtor executed a promissory note and security agreement in favor of defendant-creditor. Plaintiffs in each case allegedly fell behind in their payments, and both security agreements executed pursuant to California's Commercial Code sections 9-503 and 9-504 provided essentially that in the event of default of any term or condition of the security agreement, or the promissory note, secured party would be entitled to immediate possession of the property according to law. In each case plaintiff's property was seized by defendant-creditor without notice or hearing. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment alleging the unconstitutionality of sections 9-503 and 9-504 which provided this repossession remedy. The court, in granting the motion, found that the repossessions without notice and judicial hearing were violative of due process., The court also found that the express agreement authorizing repossession in the contract did not constitute an effective waiver of the right to a fair hearing...
Description
Citation
5 Creighton L. Rev. 360 (1971-1972)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law
License
Journal
Volume
Issue
PubMed ID
DOI
ISSN
EISSN