If a garnishment has been ruled against you in a judgment it can be collected no matter where you are.
No, you can have a judgment against you for a default.
If it's the owner of your car loan and you defaulted then the car can be repossessed. If you have a judgment against you for any other debt then yes, if you own a car it may be seized by your creditor to cover the cost of your debt.
Yes, if the state and loan documents allow for a deficiency judgment, the bank can sue for one after the home has been sold at the sheriff sale and there is a deficiency. If the homeowners are sued after the public auction and the bank gets a deficiency judgment, then bankruptcy can be used to discharge the judgment. However, bankruptcy can not be used in advance before a deficiency judgment or other debt even exists to preclude its possibility.
If they have a judgment against you, yes. However, if they DO have a judgment against you, you should have been notified and it should be a matter of public record.
A homeowner who is foreclosed upon in the State of Maryland is exposed to the lender pursuing a deficiency judgment for the portion of the total debt not repaid from the proceeds of the foreclosure sale. The lender must pursue the in personum judgment (judgment against the person) within 3 years of the final ratification of the foreclosure.
If the civil judgment is due to not making payments for an auto loan on the car that is in question, then yes, that car may be repossessed as a result of the judgment. If there is a judgment against both owners of the car (i.e., if the co-owners are both listed as defendants), then the car is considered an asset and may be repossessed unless there is proof that the car is required for one or all of the co-owners to earn money in order to pay the judgment. If there is a judgment against only one of the owners of the car (i.e., if one of the co-owners is listed as a defendant, but ANY of the others are not), then no, the vehicle may not be repossessed.
Unclear whether the deficiency would be filed by the lender or by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate.
A deficiency judgment is where the owner of a mortgage or deed of trust is awarded a judgment against the borrower in the amount of: the amount of money owed in the mortgage or deed of trust minus the amount of money the property sold for at foreclosure sale If the above amount is a positive number, some states allow the lender to get a judgment for that amount.
Deficiency judgments are fairly common everywhere on large houses. The more the amount you owe on a house, the more you are likely to have a judgment filed against you.
Deficiency judgments are allowed in Pennsylvania if the mortgage company files a separate lawsuit against the borrowers after the original foreclosure auction. If the mortgagee (usually the foreclosing bank) purchases the property at the auction, the amount of any deficiency judgment is limited by the fair market value of the property.
Yes, the private mortgage insurer can sue the homeowner for the deficiency. They can get a judgment against the home owner for the difference.
Yes. There's a process they have to follow, which includes getting a court judgment against you. If you don't hold to that judgment (which is usually paying back the money owed), they can ask the court to garnish your wages.
Only if they know you are getting it and have a judgment against you.
The lien is valid if due process of law was followed correctly. Meaning the party involved was sued, the plaintiff won the case, was awarded a judgment and executed the judgment as a lien against the defendant's property. During all these legal 'steps' the defendant should have received notification and time to respond. Undoubtedly the lien represents the deficiency and fees incurred when the repossessed vehicle was sold. There might possibly be an appeal on grounds the suit and/or judgment was faulty and therefore the lien is not valid. This requires research as to the data contained in the lawsuit petition, writ of judgment, and any other contributing factors. To obtain copies of the lawsuit and judgment documents the party involved can contact the clerk or administrator of the court where the writ of judgment was issued.
(Assuming you are the defendant) If the plaintiff is awarded a judgment against you, and you do not satisfy the judgment in full, the plaintiff may file for a writ of execution on the personal property. The personal property can then be sold at a public sale to help pay for the judgment.
the lender can seek a deficiency judgment against the homeowner in court
Your attorney can help you answer this question, since it requires a legal answer.
No, it is levied against your estate.
If both parties are named in the judgment, then a lien can be placed against the property of either or both parties. There may be, however, the possibility of appeal and removal of one party due to the dissolution of marriage.
A judgment is against specific things.
YES, after they get a judgment for the amount still owing on the contract. That amount can be applied as a lien against other property you own.
Garnished wages happen because a lawsuit was won against you. These wages will continue to be garnished until the judgement is paid completely.
If the vehicle is repossessed the borrower will be responsible for the deficiency between the sale of the vehicle and the balance of the loan. If an equitable payment agreement cannot be reached by the lender and borrower, the lender can file a lawsuit for monies owed and if successful execute the judgment against any non exempt property belonging to the debtor.
"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.