In most jurisdictions the bank can attach any other assets you have. They cannot attach assets you transferred LEGALLY prior to this action unless the transfers were made for the purpose of avoiding creditors. If that was the case they can seek a judgment to capture the property so transferred.
The judgment is against the person, not the property.
Each state has different laws on what assets can be protected from judgment creditors.
Only insofar as the judgment can be levied against the estate of the deceased. Since it can be assumed that the willed property was part of the estate's assets then it can be liened if there are insufficient other funds in the estate's assets to satisfy the judgment.
Proceeds from disposal of assets is equal to = Total cost of disposed assets- Accumulated depreciation related to assets disposed+ Profit on sale of fixed assets
Garnish your wages.
The judgment holder will have to enforce the judgment. He/she will get leave of court to conduct a citation to discover assets, where they will grill the bank account holder on his/her assets. At some point down the line, the court can freeze the assets or order them turned over.
It depends on the details. If the business was incorporated and the judgment was against the corporation the creditor can only take business property and assets. If you owned the business as individuals then a judgment creditor can take any of your assets to satisfy the judgment: bank accounts, vehicles, boats, equipment, real property, etc.
If the defendant has no assets, they may not be able to pay a monetary judgment against them. In such cases, the plaintiff may not be able to collect on the judgment unless the defendant's financial situation changes in the future.
Yes in most cases there will be a consequence. The spouse is considered to have benefited from the assets of the other.
"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.
That depends on the state, and whether the financing was "non-recourse". The process you want to find out about is known as a "deficiency judgment".
A judgment is a court order that is awarded when a lawsuit is won by a plaintiff. The judgment can be executed in several ways pursuant to the laws of the state where it was awarded. Some of them are, garnishment of wages, levy of bank account(s), liens against real property, seizure and sale of nonexempt assets belonging to the defendant. Macky...(macky83@juno.com)