… you’re joking, right? Eight year olds do not have credit reports. In any case, judgments are only listed in credit reports if they are reported to the credit bureaus, which is done by the judgment creditor.
WHOA! How did that quote get attributed to me?
That was Princhester in Post #18 who wrote that.
My bad. I must have copied and pasted the wrong bit.
No, he’s 12 now, and will be either 19 or 22 when a judgement rendered now would fall off a credit report (depending on whether it’s 7 or 10 years, which I can’t remember offhand). At 18 or 19, he might very well be wanting to take out an auto loan or a college loan, or rent an apartment, or apply for a job that does credit checks, or other activities in which an adverse credit report would be detrimental.
Furthermore, as noted, most judgements get listed in credit reports because the credit bureaus regularly scour public records, such as court documents. See for example Experian:
If a judgement is rendered against a 12-year-old, the credit bureaus will obtain that information DIRECTLY from the court, with no action required by the aunt. If he doesn’t already have a credit report, one will be opened for him, and the only information on it will be negative. Even a paid judgement hurts your credit score, but one still unpaid will be very very bad for somebody without much of a history otherwise.
You are still assuming a lot here (though I stand corrected on the policy of the credit bureaus). The aunt can file a notice of satisfaction or dismiss her complaint at any time. There is no reason to leave the judgment pending.
That’s very good. I guess in the end, I’d still want to know what level of financial pain she was experiencing before passing judgment. That gets pretty far into the ethereal, though.
Pretty much every civil plaintiff is in constant agony and five minutes from eviction. Occupational hazard. 
According to an article on MarketWatch.com who talked to Bill Bekert a partner at the law firm she used she did have health insurance and it didn’t cover all her medical costs. He wouldn’t say who the provider was or her total medical costs. I don’t think her health insurance forced her to file suit nor did it not pay claims. I think if the health insurance didn’t perform per her contract she and her lawyers would have sued them.
This is the only article I found that actually asked questions and revealed new info.
I am so glad I found this board, I just joined today so I could join this discussion. This case has bothered me since I first heard about and her and her lawyers explanation that they forced to file suit rubbed me the wrong way. I didn’t believe that was the case. I had so many questions so I reseached some. All the stories about are all the same with very few facts. Glad to see I’m not alone in thinking this case didn’t make sense
Even a satisfaction, though, will not remove the judgement from a credit report, and a satisfied judgement will be considered just as bad as one still unpaid as far as FICO scores.
Source: Solved: Impact of Satisfied Judgement - myFICO® Forums - 396137
I’m going to need a more authoritative source for that than some guy on another message board.
ETA: But assuming it’s accurate the aunt can have the judgment vacated instead.
Not as weird as you think, judgements can be sold and renewed, in some states you can renew judgement in five year increments for up to 25 years. Many people have found themselves suddenly being sued by a creditor that bought a judgement and reactivated it years later.
It’s not just “some guy”; I quoted the administrator, now administrator emeritus, appointed to run the forum established and managed by FICO itself (Fair Isaac COrporation). That’s the company that distributes what is arguably the most widely used measure of credit risk in the US.
A vacated judgement, once it has actually been removed by the credit reporting agencies (and for some reason :rolleyes: those agencies are much less likely to find the notice of judgement being vacated than the original judgement) would indeed solve the problem. A “zombie” vacated judgement popping up on a credit report is not exactly unheard-of, though; sure, you can get it removed, but that takes time, and that time can mean the difference between buying a car now and buying a car in three or four months, e.g.
I disagree that there’s no moral question. And if there’s no moral question there is in my view a policy question.
Is it right to allege that an eight year old approaching you vigorously for a hug is negligent? Ask yourself this question: if the eight year old had done exactly the same thing but the aunt had been slightly more balanced and not fallen, then someone said “well, your nephew was negligent then, wasn’t’ he?” would she have agreed or said “nah, that’s just what 8 year olds are like”.
He wasn’t negligent (jury agrees with me on that) and I doubt she really thought he was except in hindsight because she needed to think that to get money, and if she (and society) really thinks this is negligence then we’ve lost all sight of (what I think should be) the limits on the concept.
The policy point is this: “negligence” has become an intellectually dishonest system for covering the cost of injury, based around a figleaf of finding people “negligent” so that insurance will pay.
It’s a massively inefficient system that only benefits lawyers and insurance professionals (like me!).
My wife is in nursing home and rehabilitation management. They know exactly what they will get paid for and how much. And what hoops they will have to jump through to get paid. Exactly what care providers do with this information will vary, and I think my wife’s company is very honorable in providing the right amount of care no matter what, but you can be sure that some will skimp on care, e.g. hours of rehab per day, if they are only getting paid for a certain amount.
This is why I’ve switched from hugs/handshakes to the safer first bump.
I agree. But that’s going to happen in a country without universal health insurance.
Defence counsel get so jaded! What’s it been, a year at the bar?
I have a question about the Homeowner Insurance and Liability policy.
Gawker.com revealed that the Dad’s Homeowners insurance was through Travelers. Most Homeower insurance liability policies have what is called a Guest Medical or Medical Payment to Others part where if an invited guest is accidenly injured on your property no matter if the homeowner is legally responsible or not you can used this part to help pay the medical expenses of the injured guest. The amount is usually small unless you pay to raise it. Travelers website says their minimum is $1000 and does not give the maximum you can have. I would assume there is a time limit involved from the date of injury to make the claim.
We know Travelers offered the settlement of a dollar. Why wouldn’t the minimum payout be at least $1000? And would the dad have to make the claim or could the “aunt?”
Well around here it isn’t uncommon for plaintiffs to claim a psych injury, and for their supporting psychiatrist to say that their mental condition will probably continue till they receive a payout. Which is plausible I suppose but also suspiciously compatible with “I’m going to pretend to suffer a psych injury but will suffer a miraculous recovery once I don’t need to pretend any more”.