Case ID: vi_24/html/0118-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’BRIEN, Chief Judge\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MIKE WALSH d/b/a RED HEAD SALES OF ST. CROIX, Plaintiff v. EDWARD J. GERRITS, INC., BAYSIDE RESORTS, INC., Defendants
    Civil No. 1988/258
    District Court of the Virgin Islands Div. of St. Croix
    October 21, 1988
    Lee J. Rohn, Esq. (Law Office of Lee J. Rohn), St. Croix, V.I., for plaintiff
    
    Scott Silverlight, Esq. (Nichols, Newman & Silverlight), St. Croix, V.I., for defendant, Edward J. Gerrits, Inc.
    
    Thomas K. Moore, Esq., St. Thomas, V.I., for defendant, Bayside Resorts, Inc.
    
   O’BRIEN, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff Mike Walsh filed a motion for a writ of prejudgment attachment with the filing of the complaint. Section 251 of title 5, V.I. Code Ann. (1967) authorizes the Clerk of Court to issue the writ. The statute, however, is unconstitutional on its face for its total failure to safeguard the defendant’s due process rights. North Georgia Finishing, Inc. v. Di-Chem, Inc., 419 U.S. 601 (1975); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (1972); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337 (1969). The Supreme Court has held in the above cases that due process requires that the defendant be afforded notice and opportunity for a hearing and participation of a judicial officer, when his property is seized. Our local statute completely ignores fourteenth amendment principles of due process.

The premises considered, now therefore it is

ORDERED:

THAT plaintiff’s motion for a writ of prejudgment attachment is DENIED.