The Rubin family levied upon the antiquities collection owned by Iran in the hands of the Oriental institute of the University of Chicago. The Peterson plaintiffs survivors and family members of the marine barracks bombing successfully intervened. As of February 2011, the seventh circuit is considering jurisdictional challenges.
Enforcement of judgments in federal court compels the judgment creditor to take many steps in order to engage the marshal or a process server. Many marshals decline service of a garnishment and instruct the judgment creditor to use a process server. The practice in most districts is that the judgment creditor must obtain an order from the district court authorizing the process server to serve the enforcement. This is a requirement in several districts of California.
When faced with a judgment debtor who is a defendant in multiple cases, there is a high probability that they have turned over significant funds to their attorneys from which to pay out settlements in the various matters.
Such was the case with Asbestos Corporation Limited (ACL), a Canadian corporation that is frequently sued in the United States for personal injuries related to, you guessed it, asbestos.
Believing that ACL had deposited significant funds with the Pennsylvania law firm of Goldfein & Joseph, the judgment creditors obtained an assignment order which then allowed them to seek a turnover of funds held by the judgment debtor’s attorneys.
In the case of Garza v. Asbestos Corporation Limited, the judgment creditors faced the uphill battle of collecting against a judgment debtor located in Canada.
When the judgment debtor (ACL) failed to respond to post-judgment discovery, the judgment creditors moved to have ACL disentitled from responding to any further motions in the case.
The basis of the disentitlement was the simple notion that if a party avails itself to the courts they must play by the rules. A party who is in contempt cannot participate in further proceedings until they comply with the court’s orders.
In City of San Francisco v. Esmas, the City of San Francisco faced the uphill task of unwinding multiple fraudulent conveyances.
After the city obtained a judgment against the defendants for running an illegal “flophouse”, the defendants transferred the property through a series of transactions which left the chain of title hopelessly tangled.
The following documents provide insight into the multiple steps used by the city to unwind the fraudulent conveyances and sell the property free and clear of the debtors’ interest.
First, the city obtained a Restraining Order. Next a receiver was appointed. The receiver was then able to sell the property. The Sheriff Sale Order, as well as the Order Allowing Access to Property, Second Restraining Order, and Amended Sale Order can be viewed by clicking on the preceding links.
Ultimately the fraudulent conveyees appealed the order. You can view the Appellate Decision here.
This case provides the reader with a narrative commencing from the first restraining order to the appellate decision, which is a rarity in fraudulent conveyances. The seminal aspect of this case is that the trial court vacated six separate post judgment transfers in a post judgment trial. The court found that the debtor had made a series of fraudulent conveyances and vacated all of them .
Assignment orders are one method of reaching monies which are owed to the judgment debtor by third parties.
Below are two assignment orders, the first order is a general assignment of all rights to payment owed to the judgment debtor. This order can be sent to third parties along with a “Pay me, not them letter”. An additional advantage to assignment orders is that they can be sent to third parties without the need of being formally served by a process server or sheriff. These orders can be sent out by mail, fax, or even email, meaning that there are much less cost prohibitive. The second order specifically reaches funds held by factors.
The successful use of an assignment order can often lead to settlement.