Connecticut v. Doehr Facts: Petitioner DiGiovanni submitted an application to the Connecticut Superior Court for the attachment of $75,000 on respondent Doehr’s home. DiGiovanni took this step in conjunction with a civil action for assault and battery that he was seeking to institute against Doehr in the same court. The suit did not involve Doehr’s real estate nor did Giovanni have any pre-existing interest in Doehr’s home or any of his other property. Connecticut law authorizes prejudgment attachment of real estate w/o affording prior notice or the opportunity for a prior hearing to the individual whose property is subject to the attachment, as long as there is “probable cause.” The statute does not require the P to post a bond to insure the payment of damages that the defendant may suffer should the attachment prove wrongfully issued or the claim prove unsuccessful. The statute does allow D a hearing to do various things. Instead Doehr filed suit against DiGiovanni in Federal District Court claiming that this attachment was unconstitutional. Procedural History: The District Court upheld the statute and granted summary judgment in favor of Giovanni. On appeal the second circuit reversed. Issues: Does a state statute that authorizes prejudgment attachment of real estate without prior notice or hearing, without a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and without a requirement that the person seeking the attachment post a bond, satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? (No). II The Matthews case came up with a three fold analysis 1. The private interest that might be affected by the official reaction 2. The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards 3. Principle attention to the interest of the party seeking the prejudgment remedy, with, nonetheless, due regard for any ancillary interest the government may have in providing procedure or forgoing the added burden of providing greater protections. III They now apply these considerations to the case at hand. Attaching property like this definitely affects the property interest of the owner. The court lists off the potential harm that it can cause. They also come to the conclusion that the risk or err and the detriment that that can have are great. It does not seem hard to reach a decision of attachment. There really are no safeguards. All you need to have is a good faith belief or an affidavit but these are no very substantial. There are no safeguards as in other cases. There is no a prehearing to determine the validity of the claim. The court also concludes that the (P) had no other interest in the property but to get his own judgment.. they are to minimal to apply consideration here. IV
A – Considers if the Due Process clause would require the (P) to post a bond or other security in addition to requiring a hearing. The court has recognized that a bond can be used to protect property rights in situations like these. A bond is needed because whether in the actual trial or the real trial the (D) property is at risk (mortgage payments, etc.) With such a high rish of err and such a low standard for attachment, bonds present a remedy that would protect the property rights of the (D). B – this section asks whether a bond can exuse the need for a hearing or safeguards altogether. It would b eflawed to say that the bond could safeguard against needing hearing. The money from a bodn does not cover everything and other damages could incur unrelated to money. That is why a post-attachment hearing is important. V Ruled that the Conn. prejudgment remedy provisions violate Due Process.
Rehnquist and Blackburn --- Concurring in part and dissenting in part Dissent (Part IV) Says what is different here is that is this case the pre-attachment does not prevent the (D) from using his property. Courts have ruled in the past where a lien does not disturb the property from it susual enjoyment it does not violate the Due Process cluase. Here however there is a greater disturbance.
Court's Rationale/Reasoning: Previous case law in the Court shows they have not favored pre-judgment attachment hearings when there is not exigent circumstances where the PL might feel there is a good chance they might lose any possible monetary awards from DF's taking them away or using them all up. The Court also feels pre-attachment hearings are violative of due process when there is no notice prior to the actual filing of the attachment, for DF has no remedy to object to the suspension of his property rights.
(1) Property interests are significant. Liens on them affect the value of property and ability to sell them, as well as tainting credit rating. Even temporary or partial impairments are sufficient to merit due process protection. (2) Probable cause is very subjective means of determining whether or not to file an attachment to the suit. The interest is solely with the PL, and only PL gets to tell their side of the story, further hindering due process. (3) The government's interest in protecting the rights of PL cannot be any more weighty then those rights themselves, and here they are di minimus. (4) Common law only favors pre-attachment in exigent circumstances, and here CT's statute does nothing of the sort to elaborate on that issue, nor does the case-at-bar have a scintilla of information relating to the possibility that there is an exigent circumstance involved.
Bond -- A written promise to pay money or do some act if certain circumstances occur or a certain time elapses; a promise that is defeasible upon a condition subsequent; esp., an instrument under seal by which (1) a public officer undertakes to pay a sum of money if he or she does not faithfully discharge the responsibilities of office, or (2) a surety undertakes that if the public officer does not do so, the surety will be liable in a penal sum. "The fact that an instrument is called a 'bond' is not conclusive as to its character. It is necessary to disregard nomenclature and look to the substance of the bond itself. The distinguishing feature of a bond is that it is an obligation to pay a fixed sum of money, at a definite time, with a stated interest, and it makes no difference whether a bond is designated by that name or by some other, if it possesses the characteristics of a bond. There is no distinction between bonds and certificates of indebtedness which conform to all the characteristics of bonds." 1 Silvester E. Quindry, Bonds & Bondholders Rights & Remedies § 2, at 3-4 (1934).