Let’s say someone got sued and is now liable for a large sum. His house and car are owned by the bank due to mortgages and he really doesn’t have any money after the (pre-lawsuit) liabilities are all assessed. He decides to screw the world, so he flips off the people who just sued him, moons the judge, and informs everyone that he will never work another day in his life, so help him God.
Can the judge order him to keep (or get a new) job with pay sufficient to pay down all his debts within a reasonable amount of time? What if the judge does so order him and he is adamant?
I assume we*re disregarding bankrupcy laws?
In any event, with one exception, I am not aware of any scenario where a judge would compel someone to take a job.
The exception that Ive heard of is child support, although thats not my area.
Theres a 13th amendment involuntary servitude issue that applies, but Im too tired to give the full analysis right now. I*ll look in on this thread tomorrow.
Forgot to cover this part – judges compel compliance with their orders through contempt of court proceedings. You can be put in jail for contempt of court.
Yeah. Assume he has absolutely no intention of paying off anyone or restructuring anything and is going into the exciting field of inner-city windshield-washing. BTW, what’s with the asterisks?
In Texas, if the court finds that you purposefully become unemployed or underemployed, they may assess your child support on what you should or could be earning (Texas Family Code 154.066). If you don’t pay your child support, it becomes contempt of court and a variety of penalties can be assessed.
Although not the same thing as being in simple debt like the OP asks, in cases where a parent has had their kiddos taken away for whatever reason, the judge can order that they follow the Child Protective Service service plan, which always includes having enough income to take care of the kids (although I have heard attorneys argue that “being poor is no reason for the state to remove a parent’s right to be a parent”- so there is some debate).
Our judges here do this many times every single day. A standard condition of our probation is that they get a job. Everyone who is put on probation is court-ordered to get a job (or go to school full-time.)
Obviously that’s a different situation than the OP, but the court is ordering someone to get a job.
I don’t see how that could work. The judge could order you to look for work, apply for a job, go on job interviews, do everything humanly possible to get a job. But how couild they order any company to give you a job?
I’m not sure how that would work but I’ve seen it many times on probation orders as “defendant is ordered to obtain employment by x date.” The probation orders are on criminal charges.
IF the guy moons the judge as suggested in the OP, he’s going to jail for direct contempt.
Otherwise, no, a Judge is probably not going to order him to get a job to pay a civil debt–other than child support. Bankruptcy will discharge most types of civil debt–but not support, and other limited exceptions.
In a child support case, the judge can issue a seek work order, and require the defendant to apply for jobs, etc., as an alternative to incarceration.
The difference is that a child support case usually results in an order for the defendant to pay support, and failure to do so constitutes contempt. A regular civil suit usually results in a judgment saying defendant owes the plaintiff money–but it does not order the defendant to pay. It is up to the plaintiff to collect his judgment, using a variety of tools available for the purpose, including debtor’s exams, and seizing property to be sold at auction. Most states will have a list of property the debtor can claim as exempt from execution. The list will vary from state to state, but often includes the debtor’s home, a vehicle, tools of the trade, etc.
Not exactly. The judge is saying that he will let the convicted person go free, before he completes all of the term of imprisonment that he was sentenced to, if he meets certain condidtions, one of which is finding a job.
Although thats a powerful incentive, its still the convicts choice. The judge isnt ordering him to find a job.
One of the computers that I use has a specialized keyboard designed to work with an emulation of a late-1970s/early 1980s computer system. The keymap is somewhat different, and when I use it for everyday applications, not every symbol is understood. One of those few that isn*t is the apostrophe.
Its a fairly minor irritant, so I usually dont bother swapping keyboards when I*m only going to be making a few posts.
Pa
Pa
Pa
ddin
f165
kn
8
FdrFdrFdin
kro
mf
Later
(There*s a prize for anyone who can understand, or even recognizes that.)
For contempt of court of the type were discussing, the person who has refused to follow the order isnt usually sentenced to a term. He is imprisoned indefinitely until he agrees to comply. If he agrees, is freed, and then goes back on his agreement, hes put back in jail. Theres no new trial, although there may be a brief hearing where the contumaceous person is given a chance to explain himself.
That is incorrect, at least here in CT. If a Judge orders a criminal defendant placed on probation to seek employment or stay in school and the probationer refuses to comply (even if unable to comply due to financial/transportation or other issues) he can be found in Violation of Probation and rearrested on that charge. In CT VOP is a felony charge and could land the person in Jail for a year or more…this very rarely, if ever, happens but the possibility is there…
Criminal law is not my area, but the choice to seek/accept probation is still up to the defendant, correct? Obviously 99.9% of defendants will agree to almost any condition in order to get probation rather than jail time, but what happens if the defendant makes it clear from the start that he won*t agree to get a job?
You can split hairs all day. The judge can order someone onto probation even if they say they don’t want to be on it. I think most rational people would look at the following (actual excerpt from actual court order):
ORDER OF PROBATION
…
7. You shall become and remain gainfully employed during your probation term and/or become enrolled in an educational program. You shall provide written verification when required by your Probation Officer.
…
Judge’s signature
as a judge ordering someone to get a job. YMMV, I guess, if you are trying to make some kind of semantic argument that since it’s their choice to abide by it or not, it’s not really a court order. Of course, you can choose to comply or not comply with any court order, so your argument basically says that no court actually orders anyone to do anything, I guess.
No. You are missing the point, which is that judges have broader powers when someone has agreed to do something, and that agreement results in a court order.
If you owe me $1000, and I obtain a judgment against you, and you refuse to pay it and quit your job, I can*t obtain a court order putting you in jail because of that refusal.
If, on the other hand, after I get that judgment, and institute post judgment attachment proceedings against you, you resolve those proceedings by agreeing to seek/maintain employment and pay me $100 per month until the judgment is paid (which agreement is made part of the order terminating the attachment proceedings), and you then fail to do so, the judge can imprison you.
Accordingly, there is a real difference that results from whether the defendant agreed to the condition at some point.
What I am attempting to explore here is whether there is a separate basis in criminal jurisprudence for a judge to order a defendant to take/accept a job that is in no way based on the defendant*s acceptance of that provision at some point.