• 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.

Small Claims Ruling

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

Double Eagle

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My wife filed a claim against a person who hit her. Only her name was listed as the plaintiff. During the court proceedings it was borught to her/our attention that her name is not on the registration of the vehicle as the owner. This is a company car with the company name and my name only (I am her husband) as the registered owner. All evidence pointed against the defendant. The judge said she would have to reveiw a "statute" and then mail the courts decision to both parties.

The decision came in as: "Defendant does not owe plaintiff any money on plaintiff's claim", nothing else. No statute explanation.

I beleive the decision came about because legally my wife can not make a claim on a vehicle that does not show her has the owner?

I beleive the judge left the decision pretty clear that the defendant doesn't owe my wife money. But also didn't say that the "Defendant was not guilty of the accident".

Can anyone confirm that now I can start a new claim with myself being the registered owner and going after this clown?

Thanks for any inputs
 


racer72

Senior Member
I beleive the decision came about because legally my wife can not make a claim on a vehicle that does not show her has the owner?
Yep.

But also didn't say that the "Defendant was not guilty of the accident".
Guilty is a term generally used in criminal, not civil trials. Also, the defendant was on trial to determine liability for damage to a vehicle, not whether she was guilty of commiting a crime.

Can anyone confirm that now I can start a new claim with myself being the registered owner and going after this clown?
Should have done this the first time.
 

CourtClerk

Senior Member
Your wife should be able to request a dismissal w/o prejudice . (and I dont even think with prejudice would effect the company/or individual owner from filing suit). You wife would be a witness then.
WRONG you canNOT request a dismissal when the case already has been disposed of. There is nothing to be dismissed, judgment was entered as to to the defendant.
You can file a case now if you wish with the proper plaintiff. Your wife may be ordered to pay costs to the defendant.
WRONG AGAIN...
There is nothing in the CCP that supports your statement. The OP is free to sue the driver of the vehicle. In fact, this is small claims court, the defendant doesn't HAVE any costs.
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
WRONG you canNOT request a dismissal when the case already has been disposed of. There is nothing to be dismissed, judgment was entered as to to the defendant.

WRONG AGAIN...
There is nothing in the CCP that supports your statement. The OP is free to sue the driver of the vehicle. In fact, this is small claims court, the defendant doesn't HAVE any costs.
Waldo's used to being wrong.
 

latigo

Senior Member
as long as it has not exceeded the time limit (statute of limitations) allowing you to do so/
In view of the requirement that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest (Ca. CCP Section 367) and

Given that the “company” owns the vehicle and not the OP,
. . . This is a company car . .
How could the OP legally maintain the cause of action unless he were to show that he was acting in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the company?
___________________________

If the OP was in fact the beneficial owner and thus a real party interest, and it was not held as his sole and separate property, why couldn’t his spouse maintain the action on behalf of the community estate?

Cal. CCP Section 370. A married person may be sued without his or her spouse being joined as a party, and may sue without his or her spouse being joined as a party in all actions.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
In view of the requirement that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest (Ca. CCP Section 367) and

Given that the “company” owns the vehicle and not the OP,


How could the OP legally maintain the cause of action unless he were to show that he was acting in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of the company?
___________________________

If the OP was in fact the beneficial owner and thus a real party interest, and it was not held as his sole and separate property, why couldn’t his spouse maintain the action on behalf of the community estate?

Cal. CCP Section 370. A married person may be sued without his or her spouse being joined as a party, and may sue without his or her spouse being joined as a party in all actions.
Op is registered as co-owner, according to OP.

. This is a company car with the company name and my name only (I am her husband) as the registered owner
I didn't get into the spousal relationship because it is easier to just file it under the husband's or company name. The spousal relationship would have been something for them to argue at the time in court. They failed to do that so why bother with such an issue now when it would be easier to file a new suit with husband or company as plaintiff?
 

latigo

Senior Member
OP is registered as co-owner, . .
But the OP doesn’t say that he is a co-owner! He isn’t claiming ownership at all. He writes only that his name is on the registration of a motor vehicle of which his company is the legal and beneficial owner.

Are you saying that vehicle registration is proof of ownership? If so, wouldn’t he be entitled to sell it?
____________________

Then you say that it would be proper for either the OP or his company to file a new lawsuit. Which is so much as saying that if the OP did file in his sole name and recovered a judgment and it was collected, then he and not the company would be entitled to pocket the money.

And my argument is that the OP cannot properly maintain that cause of action in his sole name because as a non-owner he would not be entitled to the money if awarded/collected and thus is not the real party in interest. Nor would it foreclose the real party in interest (the legal owner) from filing separately against the defendant.
_________________

Then you pass off the possible community property issue and the wife’s right to pursue that claim on behalf of the community estate as being moot.

Yet claim that the husband can pursue the same cause of action in a separate lawsuit and re-litigate the same issues over the same property and against the same defendant.

Which is to suggest that a co-owner can sit and abide another owner’s lawsuit over jointly owned property, see it lost, and then get a second crack at the same defendant reasserting the same factual circumstances.

But to me that is not sound legal reasoning as it ignores the doctrine of res judicata and the principles of preclusion and collateral estoppel *.
_______________________


[*] “‘a judgment rendered on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties or those in privity with them on the same claim or demand.’” Gill v. Pollert, 810 N.E.2d 1050, 1057 (Ind. 2004) quoting Sullivan v. Am. Cas. Co, 605 N.E.2d 134, 137 (Ind. 1992).​
 

justalayman

Senior Member
=latigo;2735726]But the OP doesn’t say that he is a co-owner! He isn’t claiming ownership at all. He writes only that his name is on the registration of a motor vehicle of which his company is the legal and beneficial owner.

Are you saying that vehicle registration is proof of ownership? If so, wouldn’t he be entitled to sell it?
____________________
I could be wrong. I was simply accepting the statement of:
This is a company car with the company name and my name only (I am her husband) as the registered owner.
that the OP is an actual owner and not merely listed on the registration. If he isn't on the title, then yes, I would agree that the company must bring the suit. To me, when a person claims ownership, it is due to being named on the title.




[*] “‘a judgment rendered on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties or those in privity with them on the same claim or demand.’” Gill v. Pollert, 810 N.E.2d 1050, 1057 (Ind. 2004) quoting Sullivan v. Am. Cas. Co, 605 N.E.2d 134, 137 (Ind. 1992).​
there was no entry of judgment based on the merits of the case. It was a denial of a judgment due to the claimed lack of standing.
 
Last edited:
W

Willlyjo

Guest
WRONG you canNOT request a dismissal when the case already has been disposed of. There is nothing to be dismissed, judgment was entered as to to the defendant.

WRONG AGAIN...
There is nothing in the CCP that supports your statement. The OP is free to sue the driver of the vehicle. In fact, this is small claims court, the defendant doesn't HAVE any costs.
You are wrong! In small claims court, the defendant DOES have costs if they lose the case. They have to reimburse the Plaintiff for costs to bring the case in front of the judge.

You are right regarding the Op's eligibility to pursue the matter in small claims if the Op is the owner of the vehicle! From what I see, the Op and the Company are both co-owners. Therefore, they should file a claim together whereby one or the other or both can represent their interests. Latigo specifically brings up some good points regarding the situation, which cannot be solely litigated so that only one owner would benefit.
 
Last edited:

CourtClerk

Senior Member
You are wrong! In small claims court, the defendant DOES have costs if they lose the case. They have to reimburse the Plaintiff for costs to bring the case in front of the judge.
Reading is fundamental... perhaps you'd like to go back and read the context of the conversation before you embarrass yourself further. There is NEVER a reason why the WIFE would be ordered to pay the defendant's costs as a result of the HUSBAND suing the defendant over. You... just aren't that bright, are you?:rolleyes:
You are right regarding the Op's eligibility to pursue the matter in small claims.
I'm right regarding BOTH facts.

And if you insist that I am wrong... then find me something that says I am. I'll wait.
 

ecmst12

Senior Member
Um...yes if the defendent loses, they have to pay the judgement. However if they win, they have lost nothing.
 
W

Willlyjo

Guest
Um...yes if the defendent loses, they have to pay the judgement. However if they win, they have lost nothing.
Thank you! If any defendant in small claims court loses a judgement, they have to pay the plaintiff including the amounts paid to initiate the case!
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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