Opinion ID: 1646811
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Writs of Fieri Facias and Constitutional Implications

Text: The general rules relative to writs of fieri facias are set forth in articles 2291, et seq. of the Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure, Book IV entitled Execution of Judgments. An essential requirement to the issuance of a writ of fieri facias is a money judgment. Madere v. Madere, 95-088 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/30/95), 656 So.2d 1108, 1109 (A necessary prerequisite to a writ of fieri facias is a money judgment.), rev'd on other grounds per curiam, 95-1635 (La.10/16/95), 660 So.2d 1205 (Absent a money judgment, there was nothing for plaintiff to execute through a writ of fieri facias.). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2291 provides [a] judgment for the payment of money may be executed by a writ of fieri facias directing the seizure and sale of property of the judgment creditor. (Emphasis added.) While the terms seize and seizure are not defined under the applicable section of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure, their definitions are provided in Black's Law Dictionary 1389 (8th ed.2004). Pertinent to the instant matter, seize is defined as to forcibly take possession (of a person or property). The relevant definition of seizure provides the act or instance of taking possession of a person or property by legal right or process. Contrary to the principle of assignment where there is a voluntary surrendering of personal rights, these definitions illustrate the act of seizing through the execution of a judgment constitutes an involuntary relinquishment of a judgment debtor's interests. It implies a conscious reluctance on the part of a judgment debtor in renouncing his personal rights. Due to the inherent nature of the involuntary cession of a judgment debtor's property interests, this Court has held statutes relative to seizure are to be strictly construed. Pelican v. Winder, 253 La. 697, 219 So.2d 500, 502 (1969). Strict construction and application of the provisions relating to writs of fieri facias, as with other provisions pertaining to the execution of judgments, are warranted insofar as the seizure process implicates the constitutional due process protections afforded to the judgment debtor. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV; La. Const. art. I, § 2; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. There is no dispute that the Louisiana procedures for issuing and executing a writ of fieri facias are constitutional as written. However, misapplication of the procedural protections provided in the codal provisions can give rise to constitutional violations. Doyle v. Schultz, 97 F.Supp.2d 763, 767-768 (E.D.La.2000) (In Louisiana, state officials are directly involved in the issuance and the execution of the writ of fi fa.[ [7] ] The writ of fi fa is strictly a state-created and state-executed mechanism. This is sufficient to establish action under color of state law for purposes of the fourteenth amendment.... If the defendants, in conjunction with the State, violated plaintiffs' due process rights in issuing and executing the writ of fi fa, plaintiffs would have a cognizable [due process] claim....). Generally, most cases relating to the assertion of due process violations involve a judgment debtor's lack of notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the execution of a writ of fieri facias. See, e.g., Cobb v. Miller, 818 F.2d 1227, 1239 (5th Cir.1987) ([O]ne of the concerns about writs of execution such as fieri facias is that the party whose property is to be seized has notice and opportunity to be heard before seizure.). We are cognizant Ms. Theus has not raised an objection to the validity of the seizure process which is the subject of these proceedings. However, due to the novel question at issue, this Court is nevertheless required to address the appropriateness of the plaintiffs forcible taking of Ms. Theus's inchoate rights and causes of action against the defendants and, ultimately, whether the seizure is violative of the judgment debtor's interests. More directly, it is the constructive seizure of Ms. Theus's individual choice to file a lawsuit on the causes of action against her insurance carrier that warrants our full consideration. A decision whether to file a lawsuit is premised on an individual's subjective judgment. Fundamentally, such a conscious determination is dictated by one's mind and will, exhibited exclusively through the exercise of his or her own volition by actively filing or refraining from filing suit. As such, it is a strictly personal right not subject to involuntary relinquishment, such as seizure by writ of fieri facias, unless expressly provided for under the law. [8] To hold otherwise, a seizure of a strictly personal right under these facts would be a deprivation of property without due process of law.