Garnishment on an 8 year old judgement!

I did think of one reason ... if the attorney's usual process server turned out to have been practicing sewer service, then a considered decision may have been made to let all the attorney's defaults sit and molder until their file destruction dates before pursuing post-judgment remedies.

Since Marcadis is newly on the case, it might make sense to find out whether the old attorney was disciplined, and whether Marcadis is evincing a pattern of waiting for file destruction to pick up the old threads and pursue them.

How you will find that out is left to your ingeneuity.

 

I am not in Florida. In Louisiana, you have to be served by a deputy either personally or domiciliary if the defendant is a Louisiana resident.

Good luck convincing a judge you did not get service 8 years ago.

 

A friend of mine had a judgement against her.
She then sold her car. In the debtors exam the judge did not take kindly to her doing so.
Now you are correct that it is not fraud, but myself if I had a judgement against me I would not be going about transferring stocks, selling real estate, etc., as it just doesn't look good when you get into the chamber and have your finances examined.
Now if you sold this and that to pay off the judgement, great.
I am *almost* I think, going to be having a judgement against me and I have been going about making myself essential JP , so I do think it is a good thing BEFORE, just not AFTER : )
Woofer

 

I am very skeptical of anyone who claims "I did not get service." It almost never happens here.

I do not know if you are out of luck, but you definetly have your work cut out for you. "I knew about this judgment 2 years before this garnishment came in the mail yet I did not dispute it then."

 

amend this to say "I knew about this judgment for 6 years . . ."

 

This is not true. The only jurisdiction that cannot be waived is subject matter jurisdiction (in most states). As far as I know, personal jurisdiction can be waived in most, if not all states, and allowing a default judgment to be entered against you waives Personal Jurisdiction.

 

Only in cases of actual, valid service of process. Sometimes even actual notice won't be good enough if service of process isn't good. You can't allow something to happen that you don't know is happening ... if you have no volitional control over the situation, there is no way you can be charged with the consequences of a notification that never actually happened (except where substitutued service or service by publication is expressly permitted and is in fact appropriately utilized).

OTOH, waiting six years is not very smart...

 

I agree in order to waive personal jurisdiction there must be valid service. Maybe I misunderstood you. Assuming valid service, Personal Jurisdiction can be waived.

Without valid service, jurisdiction is a non-issue since the judgment can be vacated on improper service grounds (in most cases).

 

I think I see where we've been like ships passing in the night.

If personal jurisdiction is obtainable, valid service is how it can be obtained. No service, no personal jurisdiction (even though it could be obtained with service).

If personal jurisdiction is not obtainable (for instance, lack of sufficient minimum contacts with the forum, or even a situation where someone is fraudulently lured into the physical jurisdiction where they are served, or if someone is actually in court solely on another matter, or what-have-you), then the act of serving process is a nullity, regardless of whether it is accompanied by fireworks and skywriting and a brass band.

So we're talking about two different things which in some cases share a common nomenclature ... whether you're fair game and whether you've actually gotten trapped.

 

Actually, if you live in Mississippi and I sue you in Louisiana and I serve you long-arm correctly, your failure to raise the personal jurisdiction issues before a default judgment is entered means you waive personal jurisdiction.

You can have valid service with improper personal jurisdiction. It's a matter of objecting or acquiescence in the forum where the suit is filed if you are probably served but there is no personal jurisdiction. The two do not necessarily go hand in hand.

 

I may have just stated exactly what you said, but I thought you were implying that improper service means there is no PJ.

I am tired.

 

The key is that anyone who meets up with a process server and (even with the advice of counsel) concludes that personal jurisdiction was not obtainable and that service and any judgment obtained are therefore going to be nullities ... is taking one hell of a risk. If you don't appear specially and defend, you may wind up praying that the U.S. Supreme Court will see fit to take up your appeal one day...

 

Yea, we are saying pretty much the same thing.

 

Unfortunately, that may be the reason you may lose a motion to vacate judgment. Judge may feel you acquiesced in the judgment by not immediately disputing it.

Personal Jurisdiction just means they did not sue you in a place where you never lived or never agreed to be sued in.

 

Not after you default. The burden shifts to you to prove you weren't. If you even still have an opportunity to do so.