§64.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§64.7SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

CR 64 and its federal counterpart, FED. R. CIV P. 64, have not been the subjects of significant case law development. The underlying provisional remedies to which each court rule refers, however, have.

(1)Washington

Prejudgment seizure of property may be sought by use of a show cause hearing. Rogoski v. Hammond, 9 Wn.App. 500, 513P.2d285 (1973).

Superior courts have inherent power to sequester property or order that funds be paid to the court pending the final determination of the case. A strong showing is required to justify such relief. Hockley v. Hargitt, 82 Wn.2d 337, 510 P.2d 1123 (1973).

Imposition of prejudgment remedies is generally invalid unless the alleged debtor is given prior notice and an opportunity to be heard. Olympic Forest Prods., Inc. v. Chaussee Corp., 82 Wn.2d 418, 511 P.2d 1002 (1973).

Extraordinary circumstances warranted issuance of a prejudgment writ of attachment in an ex parte proceeding, based upon an affidavit that alleged, among other things, the statutory grounds now found in RCW 6.25.030(6) and (7). Thompson v. DeHart, 84 Wn.2d 931, 530 P.2d 272 (1975).

Washington's prejudgment attachment statute, RCW 6.25.070, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it allows ex parte attachments of real property without prior notice and a hearing in the absence of exigent circumstances. Van Blaricom v. Kronenberg, 112 Wn.App. 501, 513, 50 P.3d 266 (2002); see also Ch. 6.25 RCW (attachment); Ch. 6.26 RCW (prejudgment garnishment); Ch. 7.64 RCW (replevin).

(2) Federal

Except in "extraordinary situations," due process requires a hearing aimed at establishing the probable validity of the claim against an alleged debtor before provisional remedies can be imposed to deprive the alleged debtor of his, her, or its property. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972).

In determining whether...