In 1971, California's long-standing prejudgment attachment procedures were held unconstitutional. The basis of this decision was that these remedies denied the debtor procedural due process by failing to provide him with notice of the attachment or an opportunity to contest it. The California Supreme Court also made it clear that the fact that attachment remedies reached necessities of life-without a hearing on the validity of the creditors claim was an additional ground for holding it unconstitutional. The Legislature responded to the court's criticisms by enacting a revised attachment procedure. This comment analyzes the court's opinion and tests the constitutionality of the new legislation. The author concludes that these procedures may suffer certain constitutional infirmities.
John P. Stayner,
Attachment in California: Senate Bill 1048, The Interim Response to Randone,
Pac. L. J.
Available at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/mlr/vol4/iss1/14