choate (law)

{{Short description|Term used in American law}}

"Choate" ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|oʊ|ə|t}}, {{IPAc-en|ˈ|k|oʊ|ei|t}}; {{respell|COE|ut}}, {{respell|COE|ait}}), as used in American law, means "completed or perfected in and of itself",{{cite book |last1=Wallace |first1=Jonathan D. |title=Webster's New World Law Dictionary |date=2010 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |location=Boston |isbn=9780544188693 |page=70}} or "perfected, complete, or certain".{{cite book |last1=Lehman |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Phelps |first2=Shirelle |title=West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 1 | edition=2 |date=2005 |publisher=Thomson/Gale |location=Detroit |isbn=9780787663742 |page=367}}

The word became the subject of many discussions after United States Supreme Court associate justice Antonin Scalia admonished an attorney for using the word during oral argument at the high court as if it were an antonym of "inchoate", claiming that the word did not exist.James B. Levy, "Justice Scalia admonishes lawyer: 'Choate ain't a word'", Legal Writing Prof Blog, January 13, 2010, found at [http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legalwriting/2010/01/justice-scalia-admonishes-lawyer-choate-aint-a-word.html Law Professors blog and website]. Accessed January 14, 2009.Debra Cassens Weiss, "U.S. Supreme Court: Law Dictionaries Accept 'Choate,' Although Scalia Has Long Disagreed", January 4, 2010, ABA Journal, found at [http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/law_dictionaries_accept_choate_although_scalia_has_long_disagreed ABA Journal online]. Accessed January 14, 2009.

American linguist and lexicographer Ben Zimmer argues that, although faulty, its use among lawyers has been documented since at least 1828, and it was used by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., among other legal luminaries of the 20th century. It is included in most legal dictionaries and lexicons; however, Black's Law Dictionary editor-in-chief Bryan Garner essentially agrees with Scalia. Nonetheless, Garner admits its common acceptance and use within the legal profession. In IRS v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447 (1993), Scalia quoted a 1954 precedent, "but substituted [no longer inchoate] for choate".IRS v. McDermott, 507 U.S. 447 (1993) found at [http://supreme.justia.com/us/507/447/ Justia.com website]. Accessed January 14, 2009.

"No longer inchoate" is a phrase used in other contexts as well to convey a more exact meaning.[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22no+longer+inchoate%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi= Google.com search results for "no longer inchoate"]. Accessed January 14, 2009. Antonyms listed by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary for "inchoate" are "adult", "full-blown", "full-fledged", "mature", "ripe", and "ripened".

"Choate" has been used in several legal contexts, for example, any "choate right is an undefeatable right that is totally valid and ... totally free from encumbrances", and a "choate lien is ... certain and definite". Such a lien is a perfected security interest as used in the U.S. Federal Bankruptcy Code and Uniform Commercial Code. In the context of reference to liens, rights in equity, and inchoate crimes, it has been used as the antonym of inchoate.