If you have no money, you are "judgment-proof". For example, let's say a person was sued by a creditor, and that person was retired, his income a Social Security check, he had no bank account, no property, no car, nada. Creditors could sue and win until the cows came home. But the "win" would be nothing. There could be many other reasons, but the bottom line is that if there are no wages to garnish, no property to put liens on, no bank accounts to attach, then the judgment is monetarily meaningless. One would think that a creditor would avoid taking this kind of person to court.
The creditor will likely leave the judgment out there, and will eventually garnish your wages or attach to your checking account if you do become employed again. They can also garnish other income, such as government pay outs and even your tax refund. It is difficult to be truly judgment proof and not homeless. They can lien any property you own, they can wait until you are employed to begin garnishing pay checks/bank accounts. In some states, they can even force a "fire sale" where all your assets must be sold.
-----------------------------------------------
FYI: Social Security/SSI income in most cases [the exception being alimony and child support] can not be garnished, regardless of whether or not you have a bank account.
In most instances the judgment holder can execute the writ against any non exempted property belonging to the judgment debtor. The preferred method is wage garnishment followed by bank account levy. Those are the two most often used but not the only methods available for the judgment creditor. States inact laws relating to such matters. The best option for a judgment debtor is to consult with an attorney or legal adviser who is knowledgeable in the laws relating to the matter.
Yes. Because you are negating its summon, you are doing it at a time when it is unable to use its own negation effect, and moreover, it cannot chain its Quick Effect to a Counter Trap anyway, so is unable to stop Solemn Judgment being used against other cards.
"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.
you are unable to move.
If a respondent moves and cannot be located, they may miss important communication or deadlines related to the matter at hand. This could result in legal consequences or other implications, such as a default judgment being entered against them in a court case. It is important for individuals to keep their contact information updated to avoid such situations.
Even if you have no insurance or money, someone can still sue you for damages. However, depending on the collection laws of your state, you may be "judgment proof," unable to pay any judgment rendered against you. A lawsuit may result in a judgment against you, which in essence is just a piece of paper that says you owe the plaintiff x dollars. But collecting on the judgment is a completely different animal. Frankly, I would never sue anyone with no insurance or money b/c it is not worth the time and money just to get a piece of paper that is uncollectible. Hopefully, the plaintiff trying to sue you will realize that. Good luck.
In the event the lender obtains a judgment against the original loan, has been unable to recover the debt or staisfy the judgment, and petitions the court for the sale or surrender of other real property, then yes. This is not common in most cases of judgment, but it does happen. Typically the balances owed are very substantial, as the courts are reticent to take such serious action.
'Naive' means being inexperienced and unable to make wise judgment.
They were unable to revive him, so it looks like it was pretty instantaneous.
When a player is unable to make a move in checkers, they lose the game.
they get fired. they get fired.
The car will then be unable to start.