If someone is injured in, say, a car accident that isn’t their fault, and a judge awards them like $5 million, far more than the person responsible could ever hope to make in a lifetime, how does the victim get the money?
The defendant either pays the restitution or goes to jail until they can figure out a way to pay it.
No, they don’t go to jail. For a $5 million judgement the plaintiff is not going to get the vast bulk of it. Obviously car liability insurance is the first place to collect. But the court can also garnish wages, levying on bank accounts, stocks and bonds, levying on real property, seize personal property to be sold, However the defendant can file for bankruptcy to protect part of his assets–particularly his homestead.
I would think the responsible party’s insurance would be on the hook for the payment. That’s why it’s illegal to drive without insurance.
The court sends bailiffs to collect physical property when a judgment is ignored as memorably occurred in this case
Nyerges then sought to recover his attorney’s fees, and got a judgment against the bank. Five more months passed: more phone calls, more letters; no payment. Nyerges went back to court and got a writ of execution, which gave him permission to seize bank assets in payment for his judgment.
On June 3, Nyerges, two sheriff’s deputies and a moving truck showed up at the local BofA branch. The deputies informed the manager that he could either pay the Nyerges’ legal fees— $2,500—or the movers would start taking away the bank’s furniture and cash.
Generally no one except rich people and businesses have $5 million in insurance. I think that generally the plaintiff settles for whatever maximum insurance is available–unless it’s clear the defendant has very substantially more in assets.
Just to add — an insurer will just pay up. But if there’s no insurer in the picture then the plaintiff will have to be practive in invoking and pursuing the various debt collection methods available; it doesn’t happen automatically.
Collecting a judgment debt isn’t fundamentally different from collecting any other debt, really. It can be a lot of work, and a total pain, and won’t magically create money that isn’t there to meet the judgement.
Truth is… sometimes they don’t.
You can’t collect money that doesn’t exist.
I sued someone for failing to pay my wages. I got about 1/3 of the judgement before the jerk disappeared, and I was lucky to get that. She owed money to so many people and entities, including the IRS, nobody got all they were owed.
They wasn’t what was referenced in the OP.
Restitution is sometimes awarded in a criminal case. In that case, payment is usually a condition of probation. So a person could violate probation for not paying, provided they have the ability to do so (a hearing on this issue invariably asks about whether they are buying cigarettes, or getting new tattoos, or playing lotto, as part of the argument that the defendant is willfully in arrears). That violation of probation (a “vop”, in lawyer lingo) can result in jail time.
But a car accident isn’t usually a criminal case. Instead, it’s civil, and the plaintiff might obtain a civil judgment.
Those get recorded in public records, so they constitute a lien under the defendant’s name. This means that it’s going to come up on a credit check, and would probably have to be paid off if the person received certain proceeds (such as from the sale of a home).
At least in Florida, recorded judgments are only valid for 10 years, although there is an option to get another 10 years if it’s re-recorded during the initial term (a quick google search for Colorado, where I used to live, shows that civil judgments also last 20 years, unless it was obtain in county court, where it’s 6 years).
Additionally, in Florida a creditor can ask the DMV to suspend a person’s driver’s license for not paying a judgment. If the person gets on a payment plan, they’ll get their license back.
Another point is that the thread title has a misunderstanding: courts do not collect on financial judgments; the person who is owed the money does. They use civil court process to do so, but normally they have to hire debt collectors to enforce, or have to be familiar enough with the debt collection process to do so themselves.
It’s not the court’s function to go after the judgment debtor.
I sometimes watch YouTube videos by lawyers and a number of them talk about “judgement proof” defendants. Even judges have told plaintiffs that they aren’t likely to see any money out of it.
In the case I cited above, sheriffs were involved, so it’s not entirely a private action. The plaintiffs requested a writ of execution from the court whixh directed law enforcement to get involved (this may be what you meant by understanding the debt collection process)
That’s not what the article says:
Did the court send the deputies, or did Nyerges hire them to enforce the writ of execution which gave him permission to seize? There is no mention in the article that the court directed the deputies to act.
@Moriarty may know how it works in Florida, since he practises there.
I hadn’t considered that possibility- it seems like poor reporting to note that the guys were deputies and leave out the fact that they were working a second job at the time - but bad reporting happens.
I found a guidline on how to enforce a civil judgment in Florida. The person who is owed the money must take all the steps to get the sheriff’s deputies to enforce it. If the person who is owed the money doesn’t do anything to enforce it, nothing will happen. It’s not the court who directs enforcement.
The person who is owed the money on the judgment is the one who has to take the initiative, both to get the property seized, and then to jump the hoops to get it sold by the sheriff’s office, by notifying any other creditors and showing to the sheriff’s office that they have been notified.
It’s not directed by the court.
They weren’t working a second job at the time; they were performing their duties as Sheriff’s deputies.
But it’s like Northern Piper said — it’s up to the creditor to drive this process. The creditor goes to court and gets a writ of execution, authorising the enforcement of the judgment by seizure of the defeendants assets. Then he takes the writ of execution and gives it to the sheriff, who adds it to his to-do list and, at some point, goes and does it. The sheriff may, I think, charge a fee for this, or take a commission on the value of the goods seized.
The bottom line is that there aren’t public servants who are paid to be responsible for collecting your private debts for you. It’s up to you to choose enforcement methods from the range available. Then it’s up to you to take the initiative and drive the process forward at each stage.
As noted, If defendant has no assets there may be little point in trying to enforce judgement, other than the satisfaction of spoiling their credit rating. Corporations will eventually sell the debt to collectors, who will try to get at least something, even if it’s pennies on the dollar.
Since we are talking Florida, it used to be the fact that in Fla you could not garnish wages, and one car and home were exempt from attachment.
Sorta related, some times people suggest parents oughta be liable for their minor kids’ torts. One reason is most kids are relatively judgment proof - lacking assets that can be attached.
Thank you.
And thank you as well