Have you ever been sued for more money than you could possibly ever have?

As the title says, have you ever been successfully sued (ordered to pay money by a court, not merely just had somebody try to get the money in court and fail), for more money than you could ever expect to have in your life?

For example, did you embezzle a large amount of money and then gamble it away, and are being ordered to repay it. Or something similar, but it's such a large sum that you couldn't ever repay it?

If so, what happened?

Are you being forced to hand over every last cent that you have for the rest of your life, are paying a token amount?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
As the title says, have you ever been successfully sued (ordered to pay money by a court, not merely just had somebody try to get the money in court and fail), for more money than you could ever expect to have in your life?

For example, did you embezzle a large amount of money and then gamble it away, and are being ordered to repay it. Or something similar, but it's such a large sum that you couldn't ever repay it?

If so, what happened?

Are you being forced to hand over every last cent that you have for the rest of your life, are paying a token amount?

file bankruptcy,and not work,by getting declared handicap. Even told the lawyer suing me i would burn the property down before they could stop me.And then Said. good luck getting money from a stone. I wont work ,or get a job to give your client a dime.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
As the title says, have you ever been successfully sued (ordered to pay money by a court, not merely just had somebody try to get the money in court and fail), for more money than you could ever expect to have in your life?

For example, did you embezzle a large amount of money and then gamble it away, and are being ordered to repay it. Or something similar, but it's such a large sum that you couldn't ever repay it?

If so, what happened?

Are you being forced to hand over every last cent that you have for the rest of your life, are paying a token amount?

file bankruptcy,and not work,by getting declared handicap. Even told the lawyer suing me i would burn the property down before they could stop me.And then Said. good luck getting money from a stone. I wont work ,or get a job to give your client a dime.

So, you'd destroy yourself economically in order to spite somebody that you owed money to?

a reply to: AaarghZombies

If so, what happened?

Are you being forced to hand over every last cent that you have for the rest of your life, are paying a token amount?

That's actually the idea, frankly.

There's elements to this which many don't understand. And, it preys upon a principle which is a broken part of our legal system. This works in a couple different ways. You see, If I get a judgement against you for say $10 dollars and you decide not to pay then I, as the plaintiff, can take you to court again. I can have my attorneys come after you criminally, or civilly. If my attorneys can prove you've broken laws by not paying then I can potentially have the total award amount go up to say $20 dollars, of which my attorney will get a percentage. If my attorneys can only prove that you've just skipped out on paying then I can have further restrictions placed on your life in general (move out of state, etc.). In return for this, my attorneys can get a percentage of the original $10. Let's say half, or $5 dollars. Now I am only entitled to $5 dollars when you pay it back. I am unlikely to give up half of my award from you to an attorney, and an attorney is unlikely to take such a case for just $5 dollars. So, a lawsuit is unlikely to happen because the 'ambulance chaser' attorneys can't get a whole lot of money out of the deal.

Now let's scale that punitive / damage award up to a $1 billion dollars. First, I'm going to have attorneys knocking on my door every day to get a piece of that action. Second, I am a lot more likely to surrender a percentage of that $1 billion dollars to an attorney...because for one thing I know you're never going to be able to pay it all back. BUT, another more subtle thing has happened in the process. Now, there's two people who want money from you, and one of them is an attorney. And, attorneys WILL get their money! So now, rather than just one person hounding you for money, now there's two people who are keeping an eye on every movement you make financially. And then maybe three, and four, and twenty.

Each time the above happens the number of people enforcing the restrictions on your life, following your every step, increases. So, maybe you were clever in the beginning and knew how to hide your money from me. In that case, I probably knew I wasn't going to be able to get much of that award in the long run. BUT, now there's a whole gaggle of people who want their money too, and they're all smarter than me, and they're going to force you to pay! So now whereas I might have received only 1% of the original sum, now there's a whole gaggle of people who are going to make sure you pay every last waking cent to me, so they can get their cut of the action. The net result is I get more of the total settlement in the long run...and I barely have to lift a finger to do it.

At the same time, if you have a lot of money to begin with, you will have your attorneys constantly filing different actions to get the total award amount reduced (attorneys win again).

At the end of the day, the people who get the most money out of these settlements is the attorneys, not the plaintiff. And this is why the system is so screwed up. Now, on the one hand people may say "Good! I don't care who gets the money, just so long as YOU don't get it". And, in many cases this would be morally right. However, when the award amount so far exceeds anything which could ever be considered "reasonable", then it's no longer so morally right. And, when these award amounts are so excessive everyone knows you'll never be able to pay, so what's the point?

That's kind of a quick snapshot of what happens. Obviously, it's a little more complicated than this, but then we go down into the weeds trying to explain all the different legal nuances.

I am currently being sued for $500,000. For a single light bulb, that I neither provided nor installed. The system is definitely bent if not broken.

originally posted by: Nickn3
I am currently being sued for $500,000. For a single light bulb, that I neither provided nor installed. The system is definitely bent if not broken.

Was it the presence of the lightbulb, or the lack of it, that you're being sued for?

Sadly, in today's litigious society, I would definitely think twice about doing regular neighborly things in case I got sued for it.

It's too risky to even wire an electrical outlet for a neighbor in case something goes wrong and you get held liable for it. Even an accusation that you defeat in court could ruin a person.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
So, you'd destroy yourself economically in order to spite somebody that you owed money to?

Yeah. Unless you owe that money to the IRS, then even this tact won't work.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Not personally but I know of a few men that pay nearly half of their take home pay to child support.
They live with their mothers.
Family court is heavily stacked against men.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Oh oh...! What did you do???😏😱

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Not personally but I know of a few men that pay nearly half of their take home pay to child support.
They live with their mothers.
Family court is heavily stacked against men.

It should be heavily stacked against men....and collusional Women who refuse to chase the Deadbeats for money to pay for the KIds they created.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Not personally but I know of a few men that pay nearly half of their take home pay to child support.
They live with their mothers.
Family court is heavily stacked against men.

It should be heavily stacked against men....and collusional Women who refuse to chase the Deadbeats for money to pay for the KIds they created.

Yeah, no it certainly should not. As a goddam woman, if mommy wants custody, MOMMY WORKS TO MAKE IT HAPPEN, instead of sucking upwards of half the money out of ex-s pocket to be a divorced/unmarried SAH mommy on. If that's the life you want, get married or stay in a common-law relationship, because that's the only way you're entitled to half someone else's income, as the stay-at-home spouse. So sayeth THIS stay-at-home wife of divorced parents herself.

it should be dissolved, and a new, fairer system put in it's place. Supporting the current system against dads is just a lowbrow, low-IQ dog whistle issue.

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Not personally but I know of a few men that pay nearly half of their take home pay to child support.
They live with their mothers.
Family court is heavily stacked against men.

It should be heavily stacked against men....and collusional Women who refuse to chase the Deadbeats for money to pay for the KIds they created.

Uh huh...
Where did I say one word that men shouldn't take responsibility for their kids?
I've seen way to many men drug over the coals in family court by women lying about how she was treated. She rips away his kids and his finances out of spite.
Ask a soldier about his divorce.
They court will use his service against him almost every time.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
So, you'd destroy yourself economically in order to spite somebody that you owed money to?

Yeah. Unless you owe that money to the IRS, then even this tact won't work.

I've heard of this being used quite effectively against ex-wives who want extortionate alimony payments and men who deliberately keep their incomes below a certain threshold so that they can avoid paying more. Because the more money they earn the more money they lose.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Not personally but I know of a few men that pay nearly half of their take home pay to child support.
They live with their mothers.
Family court is heavily stacked against men.

It's ironic, isn't it. We live in 2021, and age of enlightenment and equality, and yet family court seems to run on the principle that women should raise the children and men should pay for them.

It's even worse that family court can force men to pay for children that were born due to the mother's infidelity. She cheats on him, gets pregnant, and when he finds out the marriage breaks down, and when they get divorced he get's stuck with the bill for raising somebody else's child.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's even worse that family court can force men to pay for children that were born due to the mother's infidelity. She cheats on him, gets pregnant, and when he finds out the marriage breaks down, and when they get divorced he get's stuck with the bill for raising somebody else's child.

This is what paternity tests are for!

No DNA...No dinero!

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Oh oh...! What did you do???😏😱

Hypothetically speaking ...

Maybe I successfully sued somebody for some property damage, and they already have so much debt that it's unlikely that they will ever be solvent.

a reply to: Nyiah

Its not about what Mommy or Daddy want...its about whats needed and best for the Lives they both brought into the world...both are at all times equally culpable.

You both pay for the kids until they are grown up....its not that complicated....we just need the Courts to enforce solid laws that protect Kids from emotionally unstable Parents going through life changes.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
Hypothetically speaking ...

Maybe I successfully sued somebody for some property damage, and they already have so much debt that it's unlikely that they will ever be solvent.

This may help:

Filing for bankruptcy. Does it matter if I already have a judgment against me?

When you file for bankruptcy, the court in question will conduct an inquiry into your finances. It will confirm whether you were being truthful and whether you actually have legitimate insolvency. If you are legitimately broke, then it does not matter whether you have been served initially, whether you have been hit with a judgment, or whether you’re in the middle of a court battle. If you happened to file bankruptcy without merit, then you will be denied just as you would if you had no court proceedings going on. Bankruptcy courts have a built-in protection that prevents people from fraudulently filing bankruptcy to avoid paying what they owe. This means they won’t stop you from making a legitimate bankruptcy claim if you qualify.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Debt, unless it's to the IRS, doesn't absolve a defendant from paying the plaintiff.

Neither does bankruptcy.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's even worse that family court can force men to pay for children that were born due to the mother's infidelity. She cheats on him, gets pregnant, and when he finds out the marriage breaks down, and when they get divorced he get's stuck with the bill for raising somebody else's child.

This is what paternity tests are for!

No DNA...No dinero!

You'd think so, wouldn't you.

If you act as the child's father then you're considered to be the father when it comes to child support in a lot of states (Most, I think). If a women has a child through an affair but tells the husband that the child is his, and he raises that child, then he has pay for that child.