Won civil suit; what happens next?

[CourtClerk]

If not too inconvenient or burdensome of your time, would you please provide us your definition of what you describe as “reasonable costs” that “should be added to the judgment”?

Also helpful would be citations of your authorities for each item.

And why your use of the modal auxiliary “should" in your "should be"?

Do you often find this auxiliary verb “should” used in legal literature? Did you select it to convey a recommendation, a probability an expectation? Something definite, indefinite?

Or might the truth be that you don’t have a bloody clue of what you are talking about?

It's not gonna happen, Tiggy....

 

[Willlyjo]

It's not gonna happen, Tiggy....

Again as I stated and your reading comprehension failed to note, reasonable costs are decided by the court that allows the Memorandum of Costs. It is not for you or me to determine what reasonable costs are.

If my Memorandum has unreasonable costs as determined by the court, then simply, they won't be allowed.

Court: I suggest you thoroughly read posts that you decide to respond to in order to avoid unnecessary posts like this one you made. This lack of reading comprehension is glaring in another particular thread--check it out.

 

[Willlyjo]

There is nothing in the CCP that says that a memo is filed after you get a writ, place a lien or levy property (et. seq.). In fact, you can file a memo after you've incurred post judgment costs REGARDLESS of whether you've filed a writ or not. In fact, there's a school of thought that says it's actually smarter to file the memo for all postjudgment costs EXCLUDING the writ BEFORE you file the writ.

Post judgment filing fees

Post judgment service fees... And what one bench offers finds as reasonable would be a different interpretation of what a judgment creditor would find as reasonable... Of course then the judgment debtor gets to contest what they may not think is reasonable...

Basically, what you say in this post is what I've said in mine. My post is all about 'post judgment fees' that one incurrs when, as the judgment creditor, they go after their judgment.

A memo can be filed anytime after a judgment is entered, but why would you file a memo before you can show post judgment costs to add onto the judgment as your post suggests?

 

[dcatz]

Willy, Willy, Willy – I wish I could stop peeking in and seeing nonsense.
The OP started with a question about Maryland and, for some reason, you analogize to California and then the information about that state wrong. Why not just address Maryland or pass?

There is very little in a Memorandum of Costs that would be subject to the Court’s arbitrary decision, because so much is statutory. Perhaps you could focus on reasonable attorneys’ fees, witness fees (if you used experts) and anything that you might throw into the category of “other”, but that’s about it, and I’m confident you’d agree. Remember, we’re talking about a Memorandum of Costs (MC-010). You called it.

Now, if we’re talking about a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgement of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest it would be different. That would be (MC-012) and that’s all statutory within the last two years. And while it’s used for some of the purposes to which you refer – “filing fees, Process Server fees or [statutory fees] incurred in attempts to recover a judgement (sic)” you’d kinda, sorta be right and wrong (if the Maryland OP cares). But you said you’re talking about MC-010, not MC-012.

And it gets so confusing because you can use MC-012 just to credit payments and add accrued interest to the writ, so, if you want the interest, of course there would be a reason to file it before the writ as Court Clerk says. The judgment debtor has 10 days to file a motion to tax costs, so your writ won’t be processed until that time has passed with no motion and your writ gets held-up for 10 days. And you have a statutory obligation to account for credit . . . .

Fees – costs. The same thing? No. Used interchangeably? No. MC-010 and MC-012 the same thing? No.

Guess I’ll go back to work. Too overwhelming for me. Good luck in Maryland, OP. Hope you learned a lot (about California).

 

[Willlyjo]

Willy, Willy, Willy – I wish I could stop peeking in and seeing nonsense.
The OP started with a question about Maryland and, for some reason, you analogize to California and then the information about that state wrong. Why not just address Maryland or pass?

There is very little in a Memorandum of Costs that would be subject to the Court’s arbitrary decision, because so much is statutory. Perhaps you could focus on reasonable attorneys’ fees, witness fees (if you used experts) and anything that you might throw into the category of “other”, but that’s about it, and I’m confident you’d agree. Remember, we’re talking about a Memorandum of Costs (MC-010). You called it.

Now, if we’re talking about a Memorandum of Costs After Judgment, Acknowledgement of Credit, and Declaration of Accrued Interest it would be different. That would be (MC-012) and that’s all statutory within the last two years. And while it’s used for some of the purposes to which you refer – “filing fees, Process Server fees or [statutory fees] incurred in attempts to recover a judgement (sic)” you’d kinda, sorta be right and wrong (if the Maryland OP cares). But you said you’re talking about MC-010, not MC-012.

And it gets so confusing because you can use MC-012 just to credit payments and add accrued interest to the writ, so, if you want the interest, of course there would be a reason to file it before the writ as Court Clerk says. The judgment debtor has 10 days to file a motion to tax costs, so your writ won’t be processed until that time has passed with no motion and your writ gets held-up for 10 days. And you have a statutory obligation to account for credit . . . .

Fees – costs. The same thing? No. Used interchangeably? No. MC-010 and MC-012 the same thing? No.

Guess I’ll go back to work. Too overwhelming for me. Good luck in Maryland, OP. Hope you learned a lot (about California).

I never referred to MC-010 or MC-012. I only referred to California regarding what is called a "Memorandum of Costs" and the fact that Maryland, like many states (concerning judgment recovery) probably has something similar.

Obviously, Maryland DOES have something similar as you pointed out.

Also, as you pointed out, MC-012 would be what I'm referring to when talking about something similar to California's Memorandum of Costs.

Maryland does things a little different than Ca. (logical-I already knew this), however, the gist of my posts surrounded the fact that post judgment fees can and do get added onto the judgment and get paid when successful recovery of that judgment occurs. This is true of Maryland and other states that allow judgment recovery.

 

[dcatz]

Weasel words. If it’s MC-012 there can’t be “unreasonable costs as determined by the court” ‘cuz they’re all statutory. Can’t have it both ways, Willy.

And as to “why would you file a memo before you can show post judgment costs to add onto the judgment as your post suggests?”, you do it to get accrued post-judgment interest even if you haven’t incurred costs in the last two years (unless you want to draft a Declaration re: Accrued Interest, which seems senseless, when there’s a form). As I said in another post “a little more than the guy on the left and a lot less than the guy on the right”.

Ya' know - this is pointless and unfair. The OP is in Maryland and, Willy, you're cutting corners to make it sound as if whatever you say fits the frame. Until I see something really egregious, let somebody else judge and explain.

 

[Willlyjo]

Weasel words. If it’s MC-012 there can’t be “unreasonable costs as determined by the court” ‘cuz they’re all statutory. Can’t have it both ways, Willy.

And as to “why would you file a memo before you can show post judgment costs to add onto the judgment as your post suggests?”, you do it to get accrued post-judgment interest even if you haven’t incurred costs in the last two years (unless you want to draft a Declaration re: Accrued Interest, which seems senseless, when there’s a form). As I said in another post “a little more than the guy on the left and a lot less than the guy on the right”.

Ya' know - this is pointless and unfair. The OP is in Maryland and, Willy, you're cutting corners to make it sound as if whatever you say fits the frame. Until I see something really egregious, let somebody else judge and explain.

Hmmm..."making it sound as if whatever I say fits the frame" eh? Maybe what I've said DOES fit the frame. Let's make this simple shall we?

The Op wanted to know "what next?" in regard to his judgment. So...I provided knowledge that could point him in the right direction as far as getting his judgment through "judgment recovery" procedures.

Obviously, you CAN use various techniques to recover a judgment and you CAN have judgment recovery costs added onto the judgment whether statutory or not.

Really it is quite similar everywhere you can recover judgments! I simply referred to California since I am familiar with judgment recovery there. What's the problem with that?

By speaking with intelligence here, it goes without saying that Maryland, California and other states may do things a bit different, but basically, issues concerning judgment recovery are the same.

So, disregarding your condenscending banter, the Op should have enough input between all that has been posted in this thread to take subsequent steps to recovery of his judgment.

Addressing your assertion that "you can't have unreasonable costs because they are all statutory" and that I "can't have it both ways": I wasn't the one who brought up "unreasonable costs", my mindset is that any costs incurred to recover the judgment IS reasonable, like filing fees, process server fees, costs to secure a writ or levy and so on. Usually (and this goes without saying), if it isn't within statutory costs, it is unreasonable and a clerk will NOT let you get by with adding a frivilous cost onto a judgment.

 

[>Charlotte<]

Techdude, I'm going to make this very simple.

Willlyjo is wrong. As usual.

 

[Willlyjo]

Techdude, I'm going to make this very simple.

Willlyjo is wrong. As usual.

Yeh you made it simple alright...why don't you at least read the thread before you decide I'm wrong.