Opinion ID: 1843065
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: seizure should have been voided

Text: When the unconstitutionality of the replevin statute was brought to the attention of the trial judge, who indicated that he had already read the Wyatt opinion, the seizure should have been voided and the property returned to the debtor until such time as a constitutional seizure could be had. In cases where the debtor has yet to receive his hearing, the seizure should be voided and the property returned... . Odom v. Raypress Corp., 601 So.2d 856, n. 6 (Miss. 1992); see generally, Guzman v. Western State Bank of Devils Lake, 540 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1976); 7 Debtor-Creditor Law §§ 27.01[B] & [D] (T. Eisenberg ed. 1989) (victim of an unconstitutional attachment procedure may have at his disposal not only the voiding of the attachment, but money damages as well ); see also Galbreath, Supreme Court's Views As to Measure or Elements of Damages Recoverable in Federal Civil Rights Action Under 42 USCS § 1983, 91 L.Ed.2d 647, 651 (1988) (annotation to Memphis Community School Dist. v. Stachura, 477 U.S. 299, 106 S.Ct. 2537, 91 L.Ed.2d 249 (1986)). It is elementary that a valid action cannot be maintained under an unconstitutional statute. Upon this point the authorities are universally in agreement: [A]n unconstitutional law is absolutely void. It is, in effect, mere waste paper, and no rights can accrue under it. Pearl River County v. Lacey Lumber Co., 124 Miss. 85, 108, 86 So. 755 (1921). See also, McLaurin v. Burnley, 279 F. Supp. 220, (N.D.Miss. 1967), aff'd 401 F.2d 773 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied 399 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 2228, 26 L.Ed.2d 795 (1970); Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 83 S.Ct. 822, 9 L.Ed.2d 837 (1963); Stubbs v. Capital Paint & Glass Co., 160 Miss. 832, 135 So. 495 (1931); and Norwood v. State, 136 Miss. 272, 101 So. 366 (1924). In Underwood v. Foremost Financial Services Corp., 563 So.2d 1387 (Miss. 1990), this Court held not only that § 11-37-101 was unconstitutional, but remanded the case for a determination of whether Foremost's unconstitutional seizure of the Underwoods' property was an act for which the creditor should be subjected to liability ... Underwood, 563 So.2d at 1392 (emphasis in original); see also Guzman v. Western State Bank of Devils Lake, 540 F.2d 948 (8th Cir.1976). Rush and his attorney were standing in the courtroom and were denied the right to tell their story to the judge. Rush should have been given his day in court because, as we have held on numerous occasions, default judgments are not favored. In denying Rush the right to defend himself, when he was present and represented by counsel, the trial judge abused his discretion, which in my opinion requires reversal. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for trial on the merits. McRAE, J., joins this opinion.