• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

What makes someone sue-worthy?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? California.

What makes a person sue-worthy?

Say the individual is married with a child, recently bought a home and has an equity in it about $4000, has a stock market account worth $7,000 and has a bank balance of $10,000. The annual family income is about $90K. Of the net monthly income, roughly 50%goes to paying the mortgage.

Would this person be sue-worthy by any standards? Please help.
 


Rexlan

Senior Member
Yep, even if you don’t have any money. The judgment will stay with you for 20 years so they will sue you anyway.

90K – 15K = 75K net / 2 = 37.5K / 12 = $3,125/mo. mortgage payment! Insane ... So about $4K equity is a $300K + home !! All that home equity ...lol. No wonder we have a mortgage crisis.
 

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
Yep, even if you don’t have any money. The judgment will stay with you for 20 years so they will sue you anyway.

90K – 15K = 75K net / 2 = 37.5K / 12 = $3,125/mo. mortgage payment! Insane ... So about $4K equity is a $300K + home !! All that home equity ...lol. No wonder we have a mortgage crisis.
Even if the judgment creditor forced the sale of the house, given that the family does not have much home equity, the creditor won't get much out of the sale after the mortgage company and the realtors are paid off. I am aware that the plaintiff can still go after the bank account and the IRA.

My main concern is the annual income of this family. While the plaintiff (who wins) may have the option of garnishing the family's wages - per the laws of California, he or she can garnish no more than 25% of net pay? Would this amount be deemed sufficient by a plaintiff and his lawyer - sufficient enough to go after the family for imagined wrongs? Even if the defendant did win, he still has to undergo the mental anguish and incur substantial legal fees defending himself. So I would like to know if the above-mentioned family would be perceived as being "sue-worthy"?
 
Last edited:

Rexlan

Senior Member
YES

The judgment will accrue interest until paid and it will stay with you for 20 years. As a consequence you will not have much until you get it paid.

Judgments are also easy to sell at discount and then you have the added pleasure of a professional hounding you.

If you can avoid the litigation you should and don't think you are judgment proof ... you"re a good candidate.
 

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
YES

The judgment will accrue interest until paid and it will stay with you for 20 years. As a consequence you will not have much until you get it paid.

Judgments are also easy to sell at discount and then you have the added pleasure of a professional hounding you.

If you can avoid the litigation you should and don't think you are judgment proof ... you"re a good candidate.
Are you a civil lawyer? (just to make sure I'm speaking to a professional). What happens if they cannot or do not pay up the judgment (and accumulated interest) in the 20 years?

Yes, the family will avoid litigation if they can. If you are an attorney, how did you determine this family's sue-worthiness? I'm posting for a relative, btw, a member of my immediate birth family, and not for my own self.

Thanks.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
Your question about wage garnishment was answered by a CA civil attorney in the Debt Collection forum, and you’re speaking to professionals here. Let’s turn this around – given the information posted in both forums, what would make you think they wouldn’t sue and, if the basis of the putative suit is “imagined wrongs”, why is it a concern?

There can be many reasons for litigation, including deterring future “imagined wrongs”, to establish precedent, to collect money and to recover damages for injury. You’re being very oblique, but apparently somebody feels there were/are “real wrongs”, and you’ve given no basis to think that a judgment in favor plaintiff couldn’t be satisfied.
 

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
Your question about wage garnishment was answered by a CA civil attorney in the Debt Collection forum, and you’re speaking to professionals here. Let’s turn this around – given the information posted in both forums, what would make you think they wouldn’t sue and, if the basis of the putative suit is “imagined wrongs”, why is it a concern?
I am not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase that, please? Are you asking why a potential lawsuit is a concern?

BTW, I am not saying that the plaintiff would NOT sue -- obviously, only the would-be plaintiff and his lawyer knows the answer to this. What we are trying to determine is to think this from a purely financial point of view to see if the would-be plaintiff, given the family's financial situation - which I have represented very accurately here, would consider it worth his while to sue the wife or not. I needed a lawyer's opinion because obviously the lawyer for the would-be plaintiff would be considering these factors prior to taking up litigation.

There can be many reasons for litigation, including deterring future “imagined wrongs”, to establish precedent, to collect money and to recover damages for injury.
I absolutely understand this.

You’re being very oblique, but apparently somebody feels there were/are “real wrongs”, and you’ve given no basis to think that a judgment in favor plaintiff couldn’t be satisfied.
I would like to know how you arrived at this. After paying off their monthly mortgage and living expenses, they have barely enough to put away in savings but apparently someone would think that they do have enough to make suing them a worthy cause? I don't know, I am confused. As I said, we're just trying to see how a plaintiff and his lawyer would view the family financially. The mental anguish of expecting a lawsuit and knowing that they could potentially lose everything fuels my questions here.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
OP – this could become interminable and it won’t. Much as you would like it and much as we would like it, there is no immutable answer to your question.

First you were posting for “a member of [your birth] family” and now you’re asking about your wife. To make things easy, let’s just settle on “one defendant”. In CA, attorneys can’t appear in Small Claims court. Therefore, it would cost about $200 to file and serve “one defendant” for a suit for monetary recovery less than $10K, about $325 for less than $25K and about $350 for anything over $25K. Then add attorneys’ fees.

“Search” on this site for “suing on principle” and “anybody can sue anybody for anything”. Use the link that was provided in the other forum to search for “vexatious litigant”. Those are people in your state who have (ab)used the legal system so frequently that they need court permission to sue.

If I am willing to pay the filing and service fees to sue “one defendant” for negligently driving over my favorite $30 Walmart garden gnome and ask for the replacement cost of the gnome and $100K in “pain and suffering”, I can. If I’m willing to pay the attorney fees to try, I can find a taker to represent me. Will I win all that I’m asking? Unlikely. Can I try? Yep. Did “suit-worthy” factor into the decision? Not once. Did “too much time on my hands” or “cranky, PO’d nut” factor in? Very possibly.

Maybe filing suit is a cost-benefit decision and maybe it’s never a consideration. However, if it is a cost-benefit decision and there is merit to the action, CA offers a wider array of enforcement tools than any other state.

Now, I’m finished with this thread.
 

Rexlan

Senior Member
Just to add one thing to Dctaz.

OP also is rationalizing the situation to his current "left-over" funds after paying all expenses.

OP what you still can not grasp is that along with judgment will come a mandatory change in your lifestyle. 25% of you NET should be around $15-20K a year in garnishment.

The Court is not going to allow you to just cruise along in your customary style after a judgment and offer the creditor 25% of the leftovers. It does not work that way.

You have a good pocket and are a very good candidate to litigation.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
To Rexlan:
(Ok, I made a liar of myself. Now they can decide if I’m “sue-worthy”.)

Yes, you’re right. The OP is both rationalizing and deluding himself. I wouldn’t have chimed in at all, if he hadn’t questioned the expertise underlying your perfectly legitimate and accurate response. Guess I got a little miffed.

I’ve never heard the adjective before, but my colleague, Chien, (who answered the garnishment question in the other forum and I are both CA commercial creditors’ rights practitioners. The easy answer, based on the postings, was “you’re [absolutely] (euphemism) “sue-worthy”, and it might take a year or two at most to enforce.” CA has so many enforcement options that, if a judgment creditor wanted to take “special interest”, between a bank account, stock portfolio, house and annual wage (no mention made of car(s) or personal property), you might cut the year to 6 months. That judgment would never see a 10-year renewal.
 

Dandy Don

Senior Member
What is the reason you are suing and what amount of financial compensation do you expect to receive? If you are successful with your suit, their paychecks can be garnished or they will have to find out some other way (perhaps taking on a second job) to pay what they ow.
 

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
To Rexlan:
(Ok, I made a liar of myself. Now they can decide if I’m “sue-worthy”.)

Yes, you’re right. The OP is both rationalizing and deluding himself. I wouldn’t have chimed in at all, if he hadn’t questioned the expertise underlying your perfectly legitimate and accurate response. Guess I got a little miffed.
Ah, how DARE a little person question a professional advice, eh? Sorry to break this to you but I wasn't questioning his expertise at all. I just wanted to make sure I was talking to a lawyer, because being a newbie here, I didn't know his background. By asking (and receiving a clarification), I believed that we would know to take his feedback very seriously if he was, in fact, in the profession.

I’ve never heard the adjective before
You probably hadn't heard it before because I coined it just moments before posting here.

but my colleague, Chien, (who answered the garnishment question in the other forum and I are both CA commercial creditors’ rights practitioners.
I see.

The easy answer, based on the postings, was “you’re [absolutely] (euphemism) “sue-worthy”, and it might take a year or two at most to enforce.” CA has so many enforcement options that, if a judgment creditor wanted to take “special interest”, between a bank account, stock portfolio, house and annual wage (no mention made of car(s) or personal property), you might cut the year to 6 months. That judgment would never see a 10-year renewal.
Did you realize that you are using a lot of legalese that most little people (such as myself) would have a hard time following? "That judgment would never see a 10-yr renewal". What does that mean?

Secondly, where's the empathy for a family that may possibly face ruin? NONE, eh? Oh, well.

As for their assets - not many, except for the husband's paycheck, which is in the low 90s. Their house is mortgaged to the hilt with about eight SECURED creditors before the judgment creditor (if he does win) and they have two older Fords (1985 / 1993 respectively)

This plaintiff seems to have enough time on his hands, a hyper active imagination, and very deep pockets. Litigation seems to be his favorite pasttime. He has been in court a few times now. My relatives have no experience with lawsuits and are naturally very worried. While he may win or he may not, at this time, we are simply interested in knowing the WORST CASE SCENARIO, which is to assume that he HAS won and is awarded a judgment against the wife.
 
Last edited:

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
What is the reason you are suing and what amount of financial compensation do you expect to receive? If you are successful with your suit, their paychecks can be garnished or they will have to find out some other way (perhaps taking on a second job) to pay what they ow.
My relatives are likely to be sued, they aren't doing the suing. They have been threatened with litigation by an individual who seems to think lawsuits are a fine hobby (he has lots of time and very deep pockets and seems to enjoy doing this). I am posting here to see if this family would be deemed "sue-worthy" based on their financial circumstances.

I would like to know what happens if they lose, have a judgment entered against them and then up and move to a state such as FL or TX that has HOH exemption for single income families? Could you clarify please? Thank you.
 

dcatz

Senior Member
Oh dear, I sense that we won’t be going out for a double latte together.

It’s ok for you to make up terms but “a lot of legalese” throws you? I can understand that. It’s why the most arcane term in your quote is “euphemism”. I think that’s generally still considered part of the common argot and not legalese, but I don’t need to know what threw you. I can eliminate the tough stuff.

Empathy? I sort of thought volunteering time and providing information and even doing research when needed might be some indicia, but I’ll go back and re-think your evaluation. (Would ignoring you have been better? I’d like more free time.) In the meantime, rather than offend further by explaining the “10-year renewal”, how about just deleting the posts that you don’t like? You already read them – why not? You post the numbers and they’re gone. Others may give you answers that you like more.

“Specialist” certification from professional organizations can be hard-won but, if applying those skills is offensive, it shouldn’t be done, and more detailed answers would require that. May I suggest that all of the questions that you’ve posted in all forums can be answered by reading California’s Enforcement of Judgments Act. That’s about 200 pages of small print and (unfortunately) a lot of legalese, but it will do the job for you, and you’ll be happier for the experience. It starts at sect. 680.010 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, and you can find that here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

You were right about Dandy Don having it backwards, but you hadn’t returned for awhile, so who knew if it mattered? To give him a lead-in on the other questions that you posed, combine your reading of the EJA with a reading of the FCRA and the enforcement statutes of those two states. Do that and you won’t even have to bother to post on FA. Then, no cause for offense. Poof. Magic.
 

HellOnEarth

Junior Member
Oh dear, I sense that we won’t be going out for a double latte together.
I would LOVE to go out for coffee with you if you are ok with that. :)

It’s ok for you to make up terms but “a lot of legalese” throws you? I can understand that. It’s why the most arcane term in your quote is “euphemism”. I think that’s generally still considered part of the common argot and not legalese, but I don’t need to know what threw you. I can eliminate the tough stuff.
Argh... the renewal part. I don't want to ASSUME that when you meant 10-year renewal, you said that the judgment wouldn't need to be renewed because it would be satisfied in full within a year?

Empathy? I sort of thought volunteering time and providing information and even doing research when needed might be some indicia, but I’ll go back and re-think your evaluation. (Would ignoring you have been better? I’d like more free time.)
Sorry. That was uncalled for Too much coffee and a lot of stress. Not that's its an excuse, I'm sorry, I apologize.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top