Tag Archives: judgment debtor

Holly Averyt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013COA10 (January 17, 2013)

Time is money, especially to a judgment creditor. Here, a jury found for Plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case. But the trial court vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court, which reinstated judgment. The trial court awarded damages and post-judgment interest at the statutory rate of 9%. On appeal again, Defendant argued that the correct post-judgment interest rate should be the market-based rate, currently at 3%, used if a judgment debtor appeals. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that CRS 13-21-101’s appealing-judgment-debtor market rate does not apply to a judgment creditor who appealed after judgment was vacated, because a favorable judgment had been entered. Separately, though Defendant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was unsuccessful; it was not groundless or frivolous, so attorney fees were not awarded.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/12CA0644-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8804&courtid=1

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Evidence, Personal Injury, Torts

TCF Equipment Finance, Inc. v. Public Trustee for the City and County of Denver, 2013COA8 (January 17, 2013)

Garnishment defined: He owes me money, you owe him money; where’s my money? Here, a Public Trustee held excess funds following a foreclosure sale and redemption. Creditor did not obtain judgment until after the foreclosure, and the redemption period expired. Creditor sought to garnish the excess from the Public Trustee, who claimed the excess funds cannot be garnished. CRS 38-38-111 dictates distribution of excess funds following a foreclosure, and states that after the redemption period for junior lien holders ends, excess funds are paid to the owner. CRCP 103 permits garnishing funds of a judgment debtor held in escrow by a public entity. The court of appeals held the statute did not bar garnishment because Creditor was not a junior lienor, but a judgment creditor. Thus, the funds were subject to garnishment once the Public Trustee determined the excess funds were due to Debtor.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_Of_Appeals/Opinion/2012/12CA0345-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8802&courtid=1

1 Comment

Filed under Government