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:
19-106.Exception to requirement of notice.
Article XIX. Replevin · Not amended since adoption on record · Last verified July 20, 2026
In one sentenceA court may skip the usual notice to a replevin defendant, and allow summary seizure, only if the plaintiff proves as a matter of record one of five specific emergencies, such as imminent destruction, removal, spoilage, fraudulent transfer, or theft.
Full Text of 735 ILCS 5/19-106
(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.
Plain-English Summary
Section 19-106 is the narrow exception to the notice-and-hearing rule set out in Section 19-105. It lets a plaintiff skip advance notice to the defendant, but only by proving to the court, as a matter of record and supported by evidence, that summary seizure is necessary for one of five listed reasons.
Those five grounds are: imminent destruction or concealment of the property, imminent removal of the property from Illinois, the property's perishable nature, an imminent sale, transfer, or assignment of the property that is fraudulent or otherwise in derogation of the plaintiff's rights in the property, or recovering property from a defendant who obtained it by theft. Each ground requires a real, immediate risk, not a general fear that the defendant might someday do one of these things.
The process happens at an ex parte hearing, meaning the defendant is not present. The court examines the evidence on each required element, or reviews any written waiver of rights the plaintiff presents. If the court finds notice is not required, or that a waiver satisfies the law, it must then order a hearing as soon as practicable on whether to enter the order for replevin, so the defendant still gets a hearing, just after the seizure rather than before.
Frequently Asked Questions
When can a replevin plaintiff skip giving notice to the defendant?
Only when the plaintiff proves, as a matter of record supported by evidence, one of five specific emergencies listed in Section 19-106, such as imminent destruction, removal from the state, spoilage, fraudulent transfer, or theft.
What is an ex parte hearing in this context?
A hearing held without the defendant present, where the court examines the plaintiff's evidence on whether notice can be skipped because of one of the listed emergencies.
Does the defendant ever get a hearing if notice was skipped?
Yes. If the court finds notice is not required, it must still order a hearing as soon as practicable on whether to enter the order for replevin, so the defendant is heard after the seizure.
What are the five grounds for skipping notice under this section?
Imminent destruction or concealment of the property, imminent removal from the state, the property's perishable nature, an imminent sale, transfer, or assignment that is fraudulent or otherwise in derogation of the plaintiff's rights in the property, and recovery from a defendant who obtained the property by theft.
Can a plaintiff rely on a waiver instead of proving an emergency?
Yes. The court may instead review a written waiver of rights presented by the plaintiff and, if it finds the waiver is in accordance with law, proceed without the usual advance notice.
Amendment History
(Source: P.A. 82-280.)
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Illinois Compiled Statutes, published by the
Illinois Compiled Statutes, Illinois General Assembly / Legislative Reference Bureau. Last verified July 20, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: ex parte replevin illinoisemergency replevin seizureno notice replevin illinoisreplevin without hearingsummary seizure requirements illinois