Opinion ID: 1692877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: An Unconstitutional Seizure?

Text: No one disputes that Foremost seized the Underwoods' home in compliance with Mississippi's so-called replevin statute. See MISS. CODE ANN. § 11-37-101 (1989 Supp.). [2] The dispute concerns the statute's ( i.e., the seizure's) constitutionality. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (which provides in pertinent part: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deprive any person of ... property, without due process of law); see also MISS. CONST. art. 3, § 14 (No person shall be deprived of ... property except by due process of law). Foremost contended that the statute is constitutional; the Underwoods and ultimately, the circuit judge, disagreed. The issue was recently rendered moot. On April 13, 1989, a federal district court rightly found § 11-37-101 to be unconstitutional. See Wyatt v. Cole, 710 F. Supp. 180 (S.D.Miss. 1989). The Mississippi Legislature responded promptly and redrafted the statute; it now meets minimum due process requirements. See Miss. SB 2187 (1990) ((amending § 11-37-101) (approved by the Governor and to become effective on July 1, 1990)). Thus, a sole issue remains for this Court's resolution.