Wyatt v. Cole, Civ. A. No. J87-0421(B).
Decision Date | 13 April 1989 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. J87-0421(B). |
Citation | 710 F. Supp. 180 |
Parties | Howard L. WYATT, Plaintiff, v. Bill COLE, John Robbins, II, J.B. Torrence, Rankin County, Mississippi; Lloyd S. Jones; Wiley Magee; Cindy Jenson; Ernest E. Smith; Simpson County, Mississippi; Ray Roberts; and The State of Mississippi, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Douglas M. Magee, Mendenhall, Miss., Jim Waide, Tupelo, Miss., for plaintiff.
John Robbins, II, Brandon, Miss., Jerome B. Steen, Whitman B. Johnson, III, Edward J. Currie, Jr., Jackson, Miss., Terrell
Stubbs, Mendenhall, Miss., Bruce B. Smith, Magee, Miss., Wayne E. Ferrell, Jr., Leslie Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., Scott Levanway, Jackson, Miss., for defendants.
The Court has before it various motions to dismiss and for summary judgment submitted by the Plaintiff and Defendants. The Court reads the pending motions to dismiss as motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). The defenses and claims presented are each intertwined with the claim of the Plaintiff for a declaration that the replevin with bond statute of the State of Mississippi is unconstitutional. The Court has heard argument on the motions, reviewed the extensive pleadings, memoranda, affidavits and exhibits submitted by the parties, and finds no continuing question of material fact which might preclude partial summary judgment on this central question. As set forth below, this Court finds that the Mississippi replevin under bond statute, Section 11-37-101 of the Mississippi Code, is contrary to the Constitution of the United States and therefore unenforceable.
The action in the Circuit Court was dismissed without prejudice on September 3, 1988, although Cole had not complied with the October 3, 1986, Order.
While a question exists as to the initial validity of the writ under the hand of a deputy court clerk without an order from a judge specified in the statute, the writ was not executed until a judge had ordered that such a writ be issued, and any defect in statutory procedure was then cured. It is uncontested that the writ was issued on a complaint as described in the statute, that the complaint was brought before a judge described in the statute, that the judge issued an order directing the issue of a writ, that the writ issued, that it was executed following judicial signal, and that Wyatt was deprived of property as a result.
The Mississippi replevin under bond statute is set forth in Section 11-37-101 of the Mississippi Code. It provides that an action in replevin will be commenced:
(Emphasis supplied by the Court.) Miss. Code Ann. § 11-37-101 (1988 Supp.) The judge is given discretion only to determine proper valuation of the property to be seized. See Miss.Code Ann. § 11-37-103. The writ of replevin commands the sheriff or other lawful officer to immediately seize the property described in the writ and deliver it to the plaintiff and to summon the defendant to appear before the Court. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-37-109. A trial of a replevin action may be had at any time following seizure or summons, so long as five days' process have been had upon the defendant. Miss.Code Ann. § 11-37-125. If the defendant prevails, the plaintiff and his sureties are to restore any seized property or to pay the value of such property in damages for wrongful suit.
U.S. Const.Amend. 14, § 1. The Due Process Clause has been applied by the Supreme Court of the United States to prevent the taking of property both in replevin and by garnishment without sufficient process. See Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S.Ct. 1983, 32 L.Ed.2d 556 (1972); North Georgia...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wyatt v. Cole Ii
...The District Court held that the statute's failure to afford judges discretion to deny writs of replevin violated due process. 710 F.Supp. 180, 183 (SD Miss.1989).1 It dismissed the suit against the government officials involved in the seizure on the ground that they were entitled to qualif......
-
Diamond v. Pa. State Educ. Ass'n
...of the applicant, "to issue a writ of replevin for the seizure of the property described in [the] declaration." Wyatt v. Cole , 710 F. Supp. 180, 182 (S.D. Miss. 1989). The plaintiff, whose property had been seized, filed an action under § 1983 seeking damages and a declaratory judgment on ......
-
Rush v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
...presented a hastily drawn motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a continuance. The motion to dismiss relied on Wyatt v. Cole, 710 F.Supp. 180 (S.D.Miss.1989), in which the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi had, on April 13, 1989--twelve days prior......
-
In re Foust
...if the party filed a declaration; the court held that a judge must have the discretion to refuse to issue the writ. Wyatt v. Cole, 710 F.Supp. 180, 182 (S.D.Miss.1989), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 928 F.2d 718 (5th Cir.1991), rev'd on other grounds, 504 U.S. 158, 112 S......
-
The Development of Consumer Protection Law, the Institutionalization of Consumerism, and Future Prospects and Perils
...Cutting the Gordian Knot: State Action and Self-Help Repossession, 2 Hastings Const. L.Q. 893 (1975). 82. See, e.g., Wyatt v. Cole, 710 F. Supp. 180, 182 (S.D. Miss. 1989) (striking down replevin law and citing Fuentes), rev'don other grounds, 504 U.S. 158 (1992). 1160 GEORGIA STATE UNIVERS......