Experienced Posters Please!

[dlky]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?KY

I will try to keep this as short as possible. I am currently involved in lawsuit with an alleged assignee of a credit card company which shall remain nameless. The amount is around $2000, plus costs, and interest close to 20% from 1996 to present. SOL defense does not apply here b/c initial suit was filed within prescribed time limit. Let me explain. Another party listed on the complaint was served in his home county in 2001. (His name alone appeared on the summons, I was not aware mine appeared on the complaint) In 2004 the complaint was transferred to my home county and I was served. After having dealt with these people for the last year with discovery and whatnot (At no time did I acknowledge the alleged debt) it has just come to my attention that a default judgment against the other party was already awarded in 2001 for the $2000, plus close to $4000 in costs and interest....everything they sought. (About $3000 has been garnised from that party) (At the time of my answer to their complaint, and my ignorance the this, I DID use the affirmative defense of SOL.) Should I attempt to amend my answer to accord and satisfaction? (In my state I think I have to obtain permission from the court and possibly opposing party to amend) How can they sue me for an identical claim with identical amounts? (Except for the fact that from me they want interest charges from 1996 to 2005 and from the other party they were only awarded from 1996 to 2001) The only thing I can find in my state's civil procedure regarding multiple parties states that an action would not terminate in the case of multiple parties if adjucated in LESS than all claims or rights. Weren't they already awarded to satisfy "all claims"? If seems so simple to me that they can't just run around suing twice for the same amounts, yet I'm coming up with squat finding a law stating this. Anyone have any ideas or insight? Thank you for your time and consideration. dlky

 

[seniorjudge]

If you are asking if a judgment against someone else affects your lawsuit, the answer is no.

 

[dlky]

It's not just a judgment against someone else, it's the SAME lawsuit. The same account, the same dollar amount already awarded, same plaintiff, same defendants, SAME case number. Maybe, I wasn't clear in my initial post as I was attempting to cram a book into a thimble, but I don't see how it's possible that plaintiff A brings suit against co-obligors B and C for a $1000 debt, then in theory, sues both separately and ends up collecting $2000 or rather $1000 from each? Doesn't sound right.

 

[seniorjudge]

If the plaintiff does not have a judgment against YOU, then the plaintiff may proceed against YOU no matter what has happened elsewhere.

Google

res judicata

 

[dlky]

Thanks! I believe that res judicata would apply, unless I misunderstand because the parties ARE the same and the cause of action is the SAME and the matter has already been decided. Pardon, if I'm getting this wrong.

 

[seniorjudge]

Thanks! I believe that res judicata would apply, unless I misunderstand because the parties ARE the same and the cause of action is the SAME and the matter has already been decided. Pardon, if I'm getting this wrong.

Tell me which word or words you do not understand and I will try to explain it/them:



If the plaintiff does not have a judgment against YOU, then the plaintiff may proceed against YOU no matter what has happened elsewhere.

 

[stephenk]

I believe you would be entitled to a credit for any amount paid by the co-defendant for the same claim.

What does your attorney say?

 

[seniorjudge]

I believe you would be entitled to a credit for any amount paid by the co-defendant for the same claim.

What does your attorney say?

Google

joint several liability


Also, I see nothing in poster's ramblings that anyone has PAID anything....

 

[stephenk]

the poster noted that the other defendant has paid $3000 through garnishment.

Joint and several liability applies, however, if the plaintiff only collects the entire amount from one defendant they cannot continue to sue the other defendant for the same amount that has already been paid. No double dipping allowed.

 

[seniorjudge]

the poster noted that the other defendant has paid $3000 through garnishment.

Joint and several liability applies, however, if the plaintiff only collects the entire amount from one defendant they cannot continue to sue the other defendant for the same amount that has already been paid. No double dipping allowed.

plus close to $4000 in costs and interest....everything they sought. (About $3000 has been garnised from that party)

This is a long way from money in the bank; poster just said this amount had been GARNISHED, not COLLECTED. Big difference.

Otherwise, I agree with you....

 

[dlky]

Thanks for the replies, insults and all. When I said I believed res judicata would apply here, though possibly incorrectly, is the law stating that the same CAUSE OF ACTION already having been judged upon wouldn't be heard again. Stephenk assumes correctly that the money was garnished AND thereby received by the plaintiff. A judgment was found against co-defendant, that he has not completely satisfied. Bearing in mind that they STILL already obtained a judgment (and a lien on real estate) in place for those same claims on another party, what exactly would be left to sue me for? Thanks.
Signed,
Thickheaded

P.S.: Clearly I don't have an attorney. My client's a moron.

 

[seniorjudge]

John and Mary kill Suzy.

Suzy's heirs sue John and Mary for wrongful death.

Suzy's heirs get a judgment against John and Mary for $10K.

John pays Suzy's heirs $1000 then departs for parts unknown. (John leaves behind no assets.)

Mary is on the hook for what is left over (i.e., the $9K) and a lawsuit to enforce that judgment will lie against Mary.


I don't know if this answers your questions or not since I really don't know your questions.

Try again if I haven't answered them.....

 

[dlky]

I understand what you mean about joint liability and your scenario...swear. Does this make a difference? I wasn't sued in the original suit. There wasn't a judgement naming us both. We were sued separately, presumably b/c we lived in different counties. The judgment for the entire amount was placed on the other person alone. (I should've said before....it is not under THE same case number open now. The other person's complaint with THAT case number already judged upon in another county was photocopied, transferred to my county and given a new number, listing me as defendant, but it's the same complaint) If you are exasperated, throw your arms up above your head and sigh real loud, use a paper bag to breathe into if necessary. I was considering settlement prior to finding out about the judgment on the other party. In your opinion, they still have basis for their claim? Thanks.

 

[seniorjudge]

Okay, it sounds like that res judicata is not an issue here because the plaintiffs split their cause of action. In some jurisdictions that is okay; in some places, it is a bad no-no and the chief justice will come to your house and thump you upside the head.

You need to ask your insurance company or your lawyer your questions.