Pre-Judgement Seizure (Important)
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Credit Forum Index ]
Posted by BallsInVise
(172.199.119.175) on January 09, 2004 at 02:07:10:
I found this interesting article on a web site (http://www.stimmel-law.com/articles/mechlien.htm) that has to do with pre-judgement seizure of bank accounts, a topic often discussed here. It says the following: "The goal of every creditor is to somehow obtain the right to seize assets of the defendant and to hold them safe ("secured") until the trial has finished and the winning creditor can enforce its judgement. In the United States, before a creditor or claimant on a debt can seize an asset of a defendant before trial on the matter, the creditor must first schedule a full court hearing in which the defendant is given the opportunity to defend against the claim. This hearing is call a Petition for a Prejudgement Writ of Attachment and no prejudgement relief is normally available to the creditor unless the creditor can prove that the assets are likely to disappear minus prejudgment attachment AND the court concludes that the creditor is very likely to prevail at the later trial. Often the Court will require the creditor to post a sizable bond even if the creditor is allowed the writ of attachment. Such hearings are expensive and most hearings result in the creditor failing to obtain the Prejudgment Writ. Courts are loathe to grant any relief to a creditor until the debtor has had its full day in court with a trial on the merits." I interpret this to mean that a creditor could not unknowingly seize a bank acct (since the debtor has to be present at the hearing), and that a Prejudgement Writ is very difficult and time-consuming, and may not be granted in most circumstances. I'm just wondering about this because I don't want this to happen to me (I have a lot of charge-offs). I already have a tax lien on my CR, and I live in CA.
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|
