Modern Management Method v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Oct 12, 1971 No. Civ. 39209Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the superior court properly dissolved a writ of attachment because the statute authorizing it was declared unconstitutional in Randone v. Appellate Department, and there was no valid statutory authority to continue the attachment.

Issues

Whether the decision in Randone v. Appellate Department applies retroactively to permit the dissolution of writs of attachment levied prior to that decision.
Whether the facts of the case bring it within a constitutionally permissible category of attachment despite the ruling in Randone.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since in the case at bench no constitutional statute authorized attachment at the time the trial court heard the motion to dissolve, its action in granting the motion was the proper one.”

“Since the validity of an attachment depends upon its conformity to a valid statute, the attachment here must be dissolved in the absence of such a statute”

Opinion

THOMPSON, J.

Petitioners have filed a petition for an alternative and peremptory writs of prohibition prohibiting the superior court from executing an order dissolving attachment entered October 7, 1971, and stayed until October 12, 1971. The superior court entered its order dissolving attachment on the authority of

Randone

Appellate Department,

5 Cal.3d 536 [96 Cal.Rptr. 709, 488 P.2d 13]. Petitioners contend that; (1)

Ran-done

is not to be applied retroactively to permit the dissolution of writs of attachment levied prior to the date of that decision; and (2) in any event the facts of the case at bench bring it within a situation in which

Randone

declares attachment to be constitutionally permissible.

We conclude that petitioners’ contentions are without merit. Attachment is purely a creature of statute. (2 Witkin¡ Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970)

[498]

Provisional Remedies, § 120 and cases there cited.) In

Randone

Appellate Department, supra,

our Supreme Court held that Code of Civil Procedure section 537, subdivision 1, the California statute authorizing prejudgment attachment is unconstitutional. (5 Cal.3d 536, 541.) It states (5 Cal.3d 536, 564) “California’s attachment statute violates . . . procedural due process ... by sanctioning in substantially all contract actions attachment of a debtor’s property, without notice and hearing. Nor is the overbroad statute narrowly drawn to confine attachments to extraordinary circumstances which require special protection to a state or creditor interest.”

Petitioners’ argument that the rule of

Modern Management Method v. Superior Court

AI Brief

THOMPSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief