Constitutional Law and Secured Transactions: State Action v. Private Action - Uniform Commercial Code Self-Help; Repossession Provisions - Do Not Violate Due Process Requirements; Adams v. Southern California First National Bank

Authors

David M. Hunter

Abstract

Several years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp.,' signaled what has been eventually interpreted in subsequent decisions as the strict measurement of creditors' rights against the requirements of due process set forth in the fourteenth amendment. What has since transpired has been an onslaught of litigation in this area of such magnitude that the due process requirements of prior notice and hearing found in Sniadach have been extended to virtually all forms of prejudgment remedies available to the aggrieved creditor. Despite all of this, the rationale of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Adams v. Southern California First National Bank evidences an emerging view that limits the vague scope of Sniadach, distinguishes peaceful self-help repossession from summary procedures involving state action, and concludes that repossession under the Uniform Commercial Code is constitutionally sound.

Recommended Citation

Hunter, David M. (1974) "Constitutional Law and Secured Transactions: State Action v. Private Action - Uniform Commercial Code Self-Help; Repossession Provisions - Do Not Violate Due Process Requirements; Adams v. Southern California First National Bank," Akron Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 4.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol7/iss2/4