• 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.

Minor wreck mama was resoponsible for reinbursment, mama dies is son still repsonsib

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

try

Junior Member
S.C. Guy was 16 when he hit a car and caused 6700 in damage. Court did judgement against mama bc he was a minor. Now moms dead and son is buying a house. Can a judgement be put against his house now? Is he still responsible for the reinbursment?
 
Last edited:


LdiJ

Senior Member
S.C. Guy was 16 when he hit a car and caused 6700 in damage. Court did judgement against mama bc he was a minor. Now moms dead and son is buying a house. Can a judgement be put against his house now? Is he still responsible for the reinbursment?
It depends on whether or not the son was included in the judgment (highly probable), and how old the judgment is, and whether or not its been renewed.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
Why was there even a judgement against the mother? A parent is not automatically liable for their children’s debts. In South Carolina for a parent to be held liable for a child’s liabilities, the acts of the minor must be intentional or malicious. A typical auto accident won’t fall under such claims. The only other reason i can think of at the moment would be negligent entrustment. That’s where the loaner (the parent) of the vehicle knew or should have know the loanee was careless or reckless and should not be entrusted with the use of a vehicle. In any of those circumstances the child would also be a valid defendent and as such likely to be a co-debtor on the judgment, of not an actual independent judgment.


So, to start with: who was the judgment against; mother, child, or both.

A judgment is good for 10 years from the date it is issued. I’ve found nothing allowing it to be renewed although I wasn’t very thorough in my search for that.

If the judgement is against the mother it should be paid during probate of her estate, if there are adequate funds.

South Carolina has a homestead exemption protecting homestead property from seizure for satisfaction of a judgment. There can be a lien placed but they can’t enforce it until he sells the property or it is no longer his homestead. The bigger problem is if he has enough money to pay the costs of buying a home, that money is likely exposed to seizure for payment of the judgment. As well, many lenders won’t even consider loaning money to a person that has an outstanding judgment against them
 
Last edited:

try

Junior Member
It depends on whether or not the son was included in the judgment (highly probable), and how old the judgment is, and whether or not its been renewed.
He was included: It says plaintiff vs moms name individually as parent of sons name. Its from 2005
 

latigo

Senior Member
Why was there even a judgement [sic] against the mother? A parent is not automatically liable for their children’s debts. In South Carolina for a parent to be held liable for a child’s liabilities, the acts of the minor must be intentional or malicious. A typical auto accident won’t fall under such claims. The only other reason i can think of at the moment would be negligent entrustment. That’s where the loaner (the parent) of the vehicle knew or should have know the loanee was careless or reckless and should not be entrusted with the use of a vehicle. In any of those circumstances the child would also be a valid defendent [sic] and as such likely to be a co-debtor on the judgment, of not an actual independent judgment. . . . . .
It occurs to me that you are overlooking South Carolina's "Family Purpose Doctrine". A theory of imputed tort liability that does no require malicious intent on the part of the minor child nor place a cap on a damage award.

Example: Corbett v. Weaver et al., South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion NO. 4440 669 SE2d 615 (2008) where the plaintiff was awarded $2M against the father for damages caused by his 16-year old son's negligence in operating the family jeep.
 
Last edited:

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
He was included: It says plaintiff vs moms name individually as parent of sons name. Its from 2005
1) That doesn't mean the child was included.
2) You're beyond the 10 year limit for a judgment.
 

justalayman

Senior Member
It occurs to me that you are overlooking South Carolina's "Family Purpose Doctrine". A theory of imputed tort liability that does no require malicious intent on the part of the minor child nor place a cap on a damage award.

Example: Corbett v. Weaver et al., South Carolina Court of Appeals, Opinion NO. 4440 669 SE2d 615 (2008) where the plaintiff was awarded $2M against the father for damages caused by his 16-year old son's negligence in operating the family jeep.
Unless there is more information that would allow imposing the family purpose doctrine, it would appear it is not applicable

https://www.sccourts.org/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/27261.pdf

The family purpose doctrine, which arises from the law of agency, is derived from the notion that one “who has made it his business to furnish a car for the use of his family is liable as principal or master when such business is being carried out by a family member using the vehicle for its intended purpose, the family member thereby filling the role of agent or servant." Campbell v. Paschal, 290 S.C. 1, 8, 347 S.E.2d 892, 897 (Ct. App. 1986) (internal citation omitted). To impose liability under the family purpose doctrine the plaintiff must prove the defendant is the head of the family and owns, maintains, or furnishes the automobile. Reid v. Swindler, 249 S.C. 483, 496, 154 S.E.2d 910, 916 (1967). Whether the family purpose doctrine applies is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, but where no factual issue is created, the question becomes one of law, properly decided by the circuit court. Evans v. Stewart, 370 S.C. 522, 527, 636 S.E.2d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2006).
 

latigo

Senior Member
Unless there is more information that would allow imposing the family purpose doctrine, it would appear it is not applicable . .
It no less "appears" that the Family Purpose Doctrine was imposed here than it should appear to you that the judgment may have been unwarranted and speculating on the issue of "negligent entrustment" and the presence or absence of "intentional and malicious" conduct of the sixteen year old!

Furthermore, it seems that you have also overlooked the possibility that Section 56-1-110 of the South Carolina Code was applied in imputing liability to the mother; which does not depend upon intentional and malicious conduct on the part of an uninsured minor or negligent entrustment.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

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