## Facts

- A private plaintiff filed a Connecticut state-court tort action alleging assault and battery and sought a $75,000 prejudgment attachment of the defendant’s home.
- Connecticut law authorized a judge to order attachment of real property ex parte on a plaintiff’s sworn showing of probable cause, without prior notice or hearing and without requiring a bond.
- The plaintiff submitted a short affidavit containing largely conclusory statements about the alleged assault, injuries, and his opinion that probable cause existed.
- A judge found probable cause and ordered the attachment; the defendant received notice only after the attachment was executed and was informed of a right to a post-attachment hearing.
- The defendant challenged the statute in federal court under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause; the district court upheld the statute.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether due process permits a state to authorize ex parte prejudgment attachment of a defendant’s real property in a private tort action without prior notice or hearing, without a bond, and without any showing of extraordinary circumstances.
2. What procedures are constitutionally required under the Due Process Clause when a private litigant uses state attachment procedures to encumber another’s property before judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment invalidating the attachment procedure as applied.
- Applying the *Mathews v. Eldridge* balancing test, the Court held that the statute’s authorization of attachment without prior notice, hearing, or extraordinary circumstances violated due process in this setting.
- The Court found the property owner’s interests substantial because attachment clouds title and impairs the ability to sell, mortgage, or obtain credit.
- The Court found a significant risk of erroneous deprivation because the procedure relied on an ex parte, often conclusory affidavit and because the fact-bound nature of a tort fight claim is poorly resolved on written submissions alone.
- The lack of any bond requirement increased the likelihood and cost of wrongful attachment and reduced deterrence against unfounded applications.
- The plaintiff’s interest was weak because the plaintiff was an unsecured tort claimant with no pre-existing interest in the property and no demonstrated need for immediate action.

## Legal Principles

- Due process requirements for prejudgment property restraints between private parties are assessed under *Mathews v. Eldridge*: (1) the private interest affected, (2) the risk of error and value of added safeguards, and (3) the interests of the applicant and the state.
- Encumbering real property through attachment constitutes a meaningful deprivation even without dispossession because it clouds title and restricts practical incidents of ownership.
- Ex parte prejudgment attachment at the outset of litigation generally requires stronger procedural protections, especially where the claimant has no pre-existing property interest and the claim is unrelated to the property.
- When a statute permits attachment without prior notice or hearing and without extraordinary circumstances, additional safeguards (such as prior notice and an opportunity to be heard, and financial protections like a bond) bear directly on reducing erroneous deprivations.
- Procedures upheld for prejudgment remedies involving secured creditors do not justify similar ex parte remedies for unsecured tort claimants lacking a prior interest in the attached property.

## Conclusion

The Court held that authorizing an ex parte prejudgment attachment of real property in a private tort action—without prior notice, a hearing, a bond, or a showing of extraordinary circumstances—fails the Due Process Clause because it substantially burdens property interests while creating an unacceptably high risk of wrongful attachment relative to the plaintiff’s limited need for immediate relief.


Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991)