2. In Doehr, defendant continued to possess and reside in his home after the attachment, but nevertheless was entitled to due process protection. In the wake of Doehr, commentators questioned the constitutionality of lis pendens statutes, which permit a plaintiff who claims an interest in real property to file a “notice of pendency” that alerts potential buyers of the claim; the property owner is not given an opportunity to contest imposition of the notice.

See Levy, Lis Pendens and Procedural Due Process: A Closer Look AfterConnecticut v. Doehr, 51 Md. L. Rev. 1054 (1992). In DIAZ v. PATERSON, 547 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2008), a federal appeals court upheld the constitutionality of New York’s lis pendens statute, applying the Mathewsfactors as construed in Doehr. Should the property owner be given any opportunity to challenge the notice after it has been imposed?