Diff. in Motions to Vacate

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by madamewalk, Sep 21, 2003.

  1. madamewalk

    madamewalk Active Member

    Is anyone aware of the differences and advantages in:

    1. Motion to Vacate Judgment
    2. Motion to Vacate Void Judgment Due to Lack of Jurisdiction

    I ask because this topic was brought up on a similar thread some time back that I did a search on, and it wasn't completely answered.

    Thanks for any advice you can provide!

  2. Flyingifr

    Flyingifr Well-Known Member

    A Motion to Vacate is brought because of a procedural error. This is most often failure to properly serve defendant, lapse on Corporate Status of plaintiff or some other reason between the litigants.

    A Motion to Void Judgement due to lack of Jurisdiction is when the court itself never had the authority to hear the case. An example would be a credit card company suing a defendant in Small Claims Court in juriusdictions where Corporations cannot be Plaintiffs in Small Claims Court, or suing in a state where the Defendant has no nexus.

    I don't knwo what you mean by advantage. The two are generally mutually exclusive (meaning if you can prevail in one, you cannot prevail in the other) because a simple Motion to Vacate de facto admits the court had jurisdiction.
  3. madamewalk

    madamewalk Active Member

    I see; thanks for clarifying that. I think the two were also confused by another poster sometime back, but in my situation, I was never properly served. Not only did they mail the summons, but it wasn't my residence at the time.

    Thanks again!


Share This Page