Interesting discussion. I understand the injustice of having to pay, but if it's proven that he was served and ignored it, I can see holding him accountable for it.

My question for the attorneys:

Hypothetical scenario:

Party A sues Party B for $60K. His claim is that Party A sold Party B a vehicle and delivered it and Party B never paid for it. Party B is served and ignores it and Party A is given a default judgement for $60K.

Let's say Party A tries a few half hearted collection attempts over a few years until finally Party B says 'Hey, I never received the vehicle and can prove it'. Party B has records showing that Party A kept the car and sold it a year later to another party.

Is the 60K judgement still intact even though Party B can now prove conclusively that he never received the vehicle?

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Interesting discussion. I understand the injustice of having to pay, but if it's proven that he was served and ignored it, I can see holding him accountable for it.

My question for the attorneys:

Hypothetical scenario:

Party A sues Party B for $60K. His claim is that Party A sold Party B a vehicle and delivered it and Party B never paid for it. Party B is served and ignores it and Party A is given a default judgement for $60K.

Let's say Party A tries a few half hearted collection attempts over a few years until finally Party B says 'Hey, I never received the vehicle and can prove it'. Party B has records showing that Party A kept the car and sold it a year later to another party.

Is the 60K judgement still intact even though Party B can now prove conclusively that he never received the vehicle?

Rather than retype it, have a look at my post on July 23 in this thread in the evening.

A lot depends on how long has gone past. The longer it drags on, the less likely he will get relief from his defaults.

It also depends on a really good showing why he was not diligent in responding before.

He must show the failure to respond and participate was without fault or blame to him, and that he has a good defense.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: JALLEN,

Generally speaking the plaintiff will prevail however it's not so simple.

The plaintiff can take the default of the defendant and the court will enter the default of the defendant but that doesnt mean that a judgment for the plaintiff will follow without question.

Remember that the plaintiff has to prove there was a contract, he delivered the goods and good title pursuant to the contract and he fulfilled the terms of the agreement but the defendant didn't. Prior to granting a judgment the court will want to see the agreement and the transfer of title before that.

If the plaintiff cannot establish a legit contract with full and unconditional performance by the plaintiff to the defendant the plaintiff will not get his judgment as requested.

Plaintiff has to prove up his case to win, even with a default.

quote:

Originally posted by rburg:
So lets step back and stop saying this is about the guy not showing up. It wouldn't have made a bit of difference had he been there. The lying mother would have still won. He wasn't smart or sophisticated enough to contest her lie. And the judge would have still found him to be the father. He still would have been wronged. And the truth wouldn't have made a bit of difference. No one would have listened. And our lawyers would have still worshiped at the alter of the system, right or wrong.

Besides, the "mother" wasn't the one getting the $65k, it was the state. They demand their money back from welfare. The lying bitch already got her money from the state (mostly).

Almost everything in this post is factually wrong.

To start with, DNA is easy and cheap to test. It would have shut the original claim of his paternity down immediately.

The state will NOT get this money. That just isn't right. That isn't how this works.

Everything else is you indulging yourself in your preconceived notions.

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Interesting discussion. I understand the injustice of having to pay, but if it's proven that he was served and ignored it, I can see holding him accountable for it.

My question for the attorneys:

Hypothetical scenario:

Party A sues Party B for $60K. His claim is that Party A sold Party B a vehicle and delivered it and Party B never paid for it. Party B is served and ignores it and Party A is given a default judgement for $60K.

Let's say Party A tries a few half hearted collection attempts over a few years until finally Party B says 'Hey, I never received the vehicle and can prove it'. Party B has records showing that Party A kept the car and sold it a year later to another party.

Is the 60K judgement still intact even though Party B can now prove conclusively that he never received the vehicle?

You would have to know more facts, along the lines of the questions JAllen described. The amount of time that has passed is very important.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
. . .But consider this: if a DNA test is required to establish paternity, then what happens if the presumed father doesn't submit to a DNA test?. . .

Good grief.

You're implying that the court has the power to fuck up the alleged daddy's financial life forever without knowing for sure that the guy is in fact the father, BUT the court doesn't have the power to compel a DNA test?

What kind of bullshit is that?

quote:

Originally posted by SapperSteel:

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
. . .But consider this: if a DNA test is required to establish paternity, then what happens if the presumed father doesn't submit to a DNA test?. . .

Good grief.

You're implying that the court has the power to fuck up the alleged daddy's financial life forever without knowing for sure that the guy is in fact the father, BUT the court doesn't have the power to compel a DNA test?

What kind of bullshit is that?

He'd have to be before the court for the court to do anything. That is, he'd have had to appear and answer the claim he was the father. The court can't issue a free-floating order and hope it lands on the right guy.

And, maybe the court doesn't have that power. Civil courts aren't criminal courts - they don't have those sorts of powers. Ordering someone to submit to invasive tests are a big deal, Constitutionally speaking.

He could have answered when cited, and submitted his own DNA as his defense. He didn't even appear. How do you suggest the court get a hold of him to order a test? He didn't appear when cited in the first place.

People keep assuming there was an accused father present in the lawsuit to order to do anything. He didn't fucking answer the suit.

The poor fellow didn't appear because he is poor, uneducated, and has no idea how the system works. As long as all the rules were followed, nothing to see here. I'm guessing he will not answer the next suit either...probably move far away and change his name.

No one should ever win by default, in absentia, ever.

A trial and a decision when you aren't even present is an obscene perversion of justice.

It's just that simple, and needs to change, downstream effects be damned.

I'll take 1000 cases on hold over one like this guy's, all day, every day.

It's better for everyone if we don't convict the innocent.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
No one should ever win by default, in absentia, ever.

A trial and a decision when you aren't even present is an obscene perversion of justice.

It's just that simple, and needs to change, downstream effects be damned.

I'll take 1000 cases on hold over one like this guy's, all day, every day.

It's better for everyone if we don't convict the innocent.

Unfortunately, the effect of that would be to exempt anyone from the civil law system if they merely refuse to participate.

Laws dependent on the voluntary participation of the parties are not really laws.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
No one should ever win by default, in absentia, ever.

A trial and a decision when you aren't even present is an obscene perversion of justice.

It's just that simple, and needs to change, downstream effects be damned.

I'll take 1000 cases on hold over one like this guy's, all day, every day.

It's better for everyone if we don't convict the innocent.

In that case, we should abolish the courts and we can all just hunt each other down with tire irons. If any defendant can simply avoid obligations by refusing to appear, why would anyone ever respond to a summons?

BTW, nobody was convicted of anything. We're discussing a civil matter in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
No one should ever win by default, in absentia, ever.

A trial and a decision when you aren't even present is an obscene perversion of justice.

It's just that simple, and needs to change, downstream effects be damned.

I'll take 1000 cases on hold over one like this guy's, all day, every day.

It's better for everyone if we don't convict the innocent.

You are proposing judicial and administrative anarchy by encouraging people not to engage in any proceedings against them as though not playing means you can't lose.

Try that with the IRS or with your assessor for your property taxes. Tell a landlord who wants to evict an unpaying tenant that he can't have his property back to rent to someone else because it would be a perversion to grant that request against the renter who might possibly have a defense at some future indeterminate point in time.

The life lesson is simple - Don't ignore a summons or complaint or a citation. Bad stuff happens if you do. This case is a perfect example of that.

If his wage was being garnished for child support payments for the last 16 years how is it that he owes $65k now?

Multiple posters have made the case that by notcontesting the child support garnishments he defacto admitted to being the father. How many payments was it? Was it something he could have easily missed? I don't check every pay statement. I could go months, even years without looking at anything but my bank account and the W2 form. Is it inconceivable that he had a few garnishments and then missed them?

He claims he was never served for child support or informed of a court hearing. Is it inconceivable that he never received notice?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Kook:
Is it inconceivable that he had a few garnishments and then missed them?

No. At least not in California.

When your wages get garnished here, the Employer gets a notice. The Employer then has to give a 2nd copy of the notice directly to the Employee. Then the Employer has to modify the Employee's paycheck, and indicate the witholding on the paystub.

So, 1) the guy would have gotten notice directly from the State department ordering the witholding. 2) the guy would have gotten notice directly from his employer. 3) His pay and pay stub would be lower than usual by a pretty large amount, and it would be indicated on his paystub.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:... we should abolish the courts and we can all just hunt each other down with tire irons. ...

Now, yer talkin'!

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
No one should ever win by default, in absentia, ever.

A trial and a decision when you aren't even present is an obscene perversion of justice.

It's just that simple, and needs to change, downstream effects be damned.

I'll take 1000 cases on hold over one like this guy's, all day, every day.

It's better for everyone if we don't convict the innocent.

Straight up trolling.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
No one should ever win by default, in absentia, ever.

A trial and a decision when you aren't even present is an obscene perversion of justice.

It's just that simple, and needs to change, downstream effects be damned.

I'll take 1000 cases on hold over one like this guy's, all day, every day.

It's better for everyone if we don't convict the innocent.

Think about what you are saying. If no default is possible, then defaulting is the PERFECT defense. Imagine you run over a 25 year old at the start of a good career. Wife, and a one year old baby. There is video of you staggering, drunk out of a bar and getting into your car. Then, half a mile away, you run the guy over in plain view of 10 witnesses after running a red light. So you run to Mexico.

The widow sues you. You don't answer. She even gets you cited in Mexico. In your set of rules, no judgment will ever be possible.

Your rule makes default a total winner, every time. Always. The perfect defense no matter what the facts are. The very most liable litigant will win every time simply by not responding.

This isn't criminal law where the state, in essence, forces the defendant to appear and participate by arresting him for a crime. In civil law, the only possible rule is that default is possible if you don't appear voluntarily.

You generally make a lot of sense to me, but on this, you are out of your mind. That cannot be the rule.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

This thread is getting ludicrous.

quote:

This thread is getting ludicrous

Those arguing that not showing up shouldn't result in a loss have lost by showing up in this thread.

It's an interesting thread. It just seems the poor guy was treated unfairly...and I recognize that he should have answered the suit.