In the context of contract law, debt collection and civil litigation, the term judgment proof is commonly used to refer to defendants or potential defendants who are financially insolvent, or whose income and assets cannot be obtained in satisfaction of a judgment.[1]
Being "judgment proof" is not a defense to a lawsuit. If sued, the defendant cannot claim being "judgment proof" as an affirmative defense. The term "judgment proof" instead refers to the inability of the judgment holder to obtain satisfaction of the judgment.[1]
If a plaintiff were to secure a legal judgment against an insolvent defendant, the defendant's lack of funds would make the satisfaction of that judgment difficult, if not impossible, to secure.[2]
> If a plaintiff were to secure a legal judgment against an insolvent defendant, the defendant's lack of funds would make the satisfaction of that judgment difficult, if not impossible, to secure.[2]
Even if they can't collect, wouldn't there be some significant value to the judgement, making it less of a he said/she said thing? When confronted with the allegation, it could be rebutted with the facts that you 1) sued, 2) prevailed, and 3) and are owed a lot of money.
Yes, in civil court. The DA office won't take on false accusations charges.
Edit: I could sue her, but nothing will come of it, she's completely broke, alone and live rent free taking care of old lady with dementia. And as of me, idk, never held grudge or wanted any vengeance upon anyone, it's easier to just cut ties, and never be associated with her
Is that what your lawyer told you? Cuz unless it's a mega corp lawsuits are expensive and they often settle if the demand is under a certain amount and there is a real or mostly-real complaint.
Plus a series of judgements does a good job of illustrating to others that all allegations were false, and were looked at by a court (possibly multiple times) to determine if they had any validity.
3 judgements in your favor is a good rebuttal if it ever comes up again...
What good would that do? OP would likely get a few thousand dollars, and the bank would make that in profits in less time than it just took you to read the word "profits".
You'd end up costing yourself money, just in the sheer time it would take to do it.
More men are going to go through this regardless of whether he sues or not. I can't imagine people who would do this kind of thing being deterred by a small civil claims court case somewhere random.
It’s not deterred because the idea that men will actually stand up for themselves is so low. Mixed in with systemic sexism against men in the courts of course
If you want to change that, men have to hold themselves accountable for protecting themselves against women.
You might not like that reality, it’s not a good one, but it’s true.
Civil court cases don't change anything, it's just dispute. And I don't think it's issue with sexism against men. I think it's social and judicial issue.
I think it's good that people can come out and without expecting any harm accuse someone who caused harm physically or emotionally. But you will have people who will try to exploit the system to gain some lavage.
Do you think social view on me gonna change if she was charged with false accusations? Nope, many would say not only I got away with it but also got her into trouble. And it doesn't remove charges from whatever blacklist I'm on. Issue is deeper than just sexism.
