§ 19-106 — Exception to requirement of notice

Notice to the defendant is not required if the plaintiff establishes and the court finds as a matter of record and supported by evidence that summary seizure of the property is justified by reason of necessity to: (1) protect the plaintiff from an immediately impending harm which will result from the imminent destruction or concealment of the disputed property in derogation of the plaintiff's rights in the property; (2) protect the plaintiff from an immediately impending harm which will result from the imminent removal of the disputed property from the State, taking into consideration the availability of judicial remedies in the event of such removal; (3) protect the plaintiff from an immediately impending harm which will result from the perishable nature of the disputed property under the particular circumstances at the time of the action; (4) protect the plaintiff from an immediately impending harm which will result from the imminent sale, transfer or assignment of the disputed property to the extent such sale, transfer or assignment is fraudulent or in derogation of the plaintiff's rights in the property; (5) recover the property from a defendant who has obtained possession by theft. At an ex parte hearing to determine if notice is not required, the court shall examine the evidence on each element required by this Section or any written waiver of rights presented by the plaintiff. If the court finds that notice is not required, or that the waiver is in accordance with law, it shall order a hearing as soon as practicable on the entry of an order for replevin.

Legislative History

(Source: P.A. 82-280.)