You file a motion with the court that entered the judgment to have the judgment vacated and set aside due to lack of jurisdiction over you. The court cannot enter a judgment against you unless you have notice of the request (service of a summons and complaint) and an opportunity to be heard (appearing at trial). This is not the ame as appealing the improper judgment.
If a case is dismissed, then the case is over and no judgment is given. Everyone hopefully goes home happy.
I would thinks so. You have a right to defend yourself and its on them to notify you of the date. If they never told you when then due process was not followed
When a person (the plaintiff) sues someone (the defendant), the defendant gets a certain amount of time to respond to the lawsuit (times vary by state). If the defendant does not respond to the lawsuit within the time period prescribed or does not show up to court on the day he or she is supposed to, the plaintiff will ask for (and the court will usually give) a default judgment. Simply put, the plaintiff wins because the defendant did not make an effort to defend themselves. A request for entry of default is when the time has passed for the defendant to respond to a lawsuit and the plaintiff is asking for a default judgment. This only applies to civil cases, not criminal cases.
That normally means the plaintiff asked the judge for a judgment against you not on the facts of the case but just because you're in default (for failure to appear, plead, answer, or do something else you're supposed to do as a defendant in litigation wherever you are). And apparently the judge said no, and either the law required that notice be sent to you or the judge in his or her discretion ordered that notice be sent to you. So right now there's no judgment against you -- yet. The next step if you do nothing but continue to receive court notices and you do not respond, may be for the plaintiff to ask the judge for a trial date where the plaintiff puts on its witnesses and evidence and if you are given notice to the trial and don't show up the judge could enter a judgment against you "ex parte" (one-sided) and then it just gets more difficult to undo anything.
No because the plaintiff is the defendents "opponent."
It depends on what the debt is the result of. If the debt was incurred because of unpaid services rendered or goods delivered to their property, then, yes. For all other debts, you will need what is called a judgment lien. A judgment lien is where you sue someone, and are awarded a judgment against them. If the judgment is not paid, it can be filed in the property records, and creates a lien on the debtor's property.
Absolutely not. It is not unusual for a judgment to be awarded to a creditor, but it cannot be "satisfied" because the debtor is deemed judgment proof. Meaning the person has no assets that can be seized for the amount of the judgment. However, in most cases judgments are renewable. Creditors may continue to do this, based on the premise the debtor at a future date will have property or income the judgment can be executed upon.
Yes, most judgments can be discharged in a chapter 7 bankruptcy.
You will have to file an appropriate affidavit stating the facts that are in dispute and perhaps a brief stating the legal reasons why you feel summary judgment should not be granted. A motion for summary judgment is made by a plaintiff because it contends that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because, even giving you all benefits of reasonable inferences and resolving all doubts about the evidence against plaintiff from disputed facts, there are no issues of material fact to support your case. In short, if you are being sued for an unpaid debt and you cannot provide facts to show that you do not owe the debt or that for some reason plaintiff is not entitled to collect, then summary judgment will be granted against you. So your obligation is to prepare an affidavit showing the specific facts that show that plaintiff is not entitled to judgment. You may have to prepare a legal brief as well, showing, if you can find any, case law that has similar facts where a summary judgment was denied. The most important thing to show is that there are factual issues that are in dispute and would have to be resolved by a jury. Procedurally, you should check the court rules for how to file the Objection to Entry of Summary Judgment. At the least, look for these things: Does the motion for summary judgment have a specific return date for argument. How many days before the return date of the motion do you have to file your papers in opposition. File as the original and as many copies as the rule require. Send a copy of the papers you file to the attorney making the motion. Go to court on the return day of the motion. Here is a tip: It is possible to challenge part of the summary judgment. For example, assume that you cannot dispute that you owe the debt and that you really have no opposition to summary judgment on the debt itself. But plaintiff will probably seek other things as well, like interest, counsel fees and costs. Challenge the computation of those figures. You might not be able to avoid summary judgment on the debt itself but you might avoid it on the other issues. Sometimes, a plaintiff will drop claims for those other things if it gets a summary judgment on the main debt. So it pays to look at each individual item that makes up the total amount of money plaintiff is seeking. Don't think that because you can't dispute the main debt, that you can't object to the other things.
If both persons were sued and a judgment awarded but only the husband filed bankruptcy and included the debt; the judgment can still be executed against any non-exempt property belonging to the wife and perhaps jointly owned property as well. The legal presumption is that the debt is still owed because it was jointly incurred.
"Judgment-proof" means that even if a plaintiff obtains its civil judgment against its defendant, the defendant has no assets from on which the court can levy in proceedings in aid of execution to satisfy the judgment. It also generally implies that as a result the defendant is not worth being sued, because the possibility of ultimately recovering a money judgment is nil.Added: There is no such legal principle as judgment proof. It is not a defense to a lawsuit. One can obtain a judgment against a defendant, regardless of the ability to collect the judgment. Plaintiffs often choose to proceed against defendants who appear to be judgment proof because they believe that the defendant will eventually have assets or income against which to collect.You are correct. The status of being judgment-proof is as a matter of fact and not a matter of law. Which is why I used the word "implied" and not the word "holds". Therefore, it is legal to the extent that as a matter of fact the judgment cannot be satisfied.
The Plaintiff goes first because they are the people suing the defendant, which gives them the ability tp go first.
because that was god's judgment on us because that was god's judgment on us
Yes. Because you can't have judgment if you have no emotion.
In a civil trial, the plaintiff must prove the elements of their case. Because the plaintiff is the one bringing the case to trial, they have the burden of proof.
Wit, judgment, courage, and resolution are not unconditionally good because…
it is important to be informed because you need to be aware of what goes on.
A summary judgement may used to avoid an unnecessary trial or simplify one. Either the plaintiff or the defendant may file for one when they feel that all factual issues are resolved, or a trial is not necessary because the case is one-sided.
Staying informed is a civic responsibility because it keeps you up to date with government decisions.
No it is not. If a criminal defendant had been convicted of two charges and the appellate court reversed in part by setting aside the conviction on one of the charges, there would be no remand because the defendant could not be retried on the count reversed. In a civil action, if a plaintiff won on two counts of a complaint and the appellate court reversed the judgment on one by reason of it not being supported by the weight of the evidence, it would not be remanded because the plaintiff doesn't get another chance to prove his case.
we have a TRO in NJ
Damages are the amount of money awarded to the plaintiff in a lawsuit. Damages are generally determined by the judge using established guidelines based on type of offense and severity. In civil cases damages are based on the actual loss incurred because of the tort and may include penalties.
because i was not there...