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.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?
He was included: It says plaintiff vs moms name individually as parent of sons name. Its from 2005It 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.
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.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. . . . . .
1) That doesn't mean the child was included.He was included: It says plaintiff vs moms name individually as parent of sons name. Its from 2005
Unless there is more information that would allow imposing the family purpose doctrine, it would appear it is not applicableIt 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.
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).
The judgment is no longer valid. It's been over 10 years.So was mother's estate attached and was that liquidated to pay the judgment?
When did mom die? He never said. So it may not have been more than 10 years when she died.The judgment is no longer valid. It's been over 10 years.
Yes, that's true, but there's nothing that can be done about it now.When did mom die? He never said. So it may not have been more than 10 years when she died.
If mom died while the judgment was active then whoever handled her estate may have committed fraud. So yeah, something could be done possibly.Yes, that's true, but there's nothing that can be done about it now.
Fair enough.If mom died while the judgment was active then whoever handled her estate may have committed fraud. So yeah, something could be done possibly.
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!Unless there is more information that would allow imposing the family purpose doctrine, it would appear it is not applicable . .