What if you cannot pay the damages in a civil law suit? This question is in response to the defamation case between Mr Johnny Depp and Miss Amber Heard. Mr Depp claims that the defamation damages amount to 50 million dollars. Now suppose that the jury awards damages in the full amount asked. What happens if Miss Heard cannot find 50 million dollars to pay Mr Depp? Or in general, what happens if the defendant does not have enough money to pay a civil judgement?
Short Answer If a judgment debtor is unable to pay the full amount of a judgment entered against the judgment debtor in a lawsuit, then the judgment creditor doesn't get paid until the judgment debtor is able to pay and the judgment creditor takes action to enforce the judgment at that time. To the extent the a judgment debt has an ability to pay as determined from assets and income which are not exemption from creditor's claims under the relevant state law, there are a variety of court supervised means by which a judgment creditor can involuntarily have that those assets and that income turned over to the judgment creditor. Many judgments are never paid in full. Long Answer Judgment Creditor's Rights, In General A money judgment entered in a lawsuit is a right of a judgment creditor represented by a court registry entry or piece of paper to use involuntary debt collection methods to obtain property (defined broadly) from a judgment debtor. Until the judgment is paid in full, the judgment creditor can continue to use these methods so long as there are assets not exempt from creditors, or income not exempt from creditors that the judgment debtor has available to them. Judgment creditors can't collect from someone who has no assets or income that is not exempt from creditors claims (a complicated list that varies from state to state and can be different as a general rule, in bankruptcy, in probate, and for special kinds of debts like child support debts). When a judgment debtor has no non-exempt assets or income worth that are cost effective to collect, the judgment debtor is called &quot;judgment-proof&quot; and the judgment creditor has no ability to collect further until the judgment debtor ceases to be judgment-proof. Despite the long list of options for judgment creditors set forth below, in practice, lots of judgments are paid voluntarily and lots of judgments expire before they are paid in full because the judgment debtor is judgment-proof or are discharged in bankruptcy. Formal means of involuntarily collection discussed below are the exception rather than the rule. This is, in part, because having unpaid judgments is horrible for your credit, in part, because collection activity is extremely disruptive to the judgment-debtor's life, and in part, because judgments accrue post-judgment interest which is often at a high interest rate so there is an incentive to pay it off sooner so that the judgment debtor owes less to the judgment creditor overall. Another factor is that most people get judgments against them because they owe debts that they don't have an ability to pay (e.g. due to a lost job) and the existence of a money judgment against them doesn't create an ability to pay. Voluntary compromises between judgment creditors and judgment debtors pursuant to agreed payment plans with judgment creditors not taking collection action way judgment debtors are current on payment plans are also very common, since they solve many hardships arising from formal collection for the judgment debtor and reduce collection costs for the judgment creditor. The relevant law of creditor's rights and debtor's remedies, with the exception of bankruptcy and a few nationally mandated exemptions from creditors is predominantly a matter of state law. For almost all practical purposes, the remedies available for failing to pay a federal court civil judgment are the same as those available for failing to pay a state or local court civil judgment. Typical Collection Methods Typically, a judgment creditor can: Impose judgment liens on real property owned by the judgment debtor (subject to a homestead exemption) and foreclosed on that lien to get the property in full or partial payment of the debt. It is also possible to impose a judgment lien and refrain from foreclosing and instead to wait until property is sold and collect from proceeds at a closing upon that sale of property subject to a judgment lien. Judgment liens have a very high priority in bankruptcy once they have been imposed on property and all formalities for doing so are completed. Garnish bank accounts, wages, and other amounts owed by third-parties to the judgment debtor. Set off money owed by the judgment creditor to the judgment debtor against money owed by the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor. Seize tangible personal property (e.g. cars, gold bars) that are not exempt from the claims of creditors from a third-party, and also some intangible property (e.g. shares of stock in a corporation). Compel the judgment debtor to disclose the judgment debtor's assets and income sources under oath to the judgment creditor. Imposing a &quot;charging order&quot; on a pass through entity interest like an LLC. Sue people to whom the judgment debtor transferred property without substantially equivalent value within the applicable time period to &quot;claw back&quot; those assets that were given away or sold in bargain sales within the applicable statute of limitations. Assets subject to liens or mortgages can be placed in receiverships pending their seizure in foreclosure sale. In unusual circumstances, a court can order that specific property be transferred or delivered by the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor in exchange for a specified credit against the judgment. Additional remedies are available to child support creditors (and in rare cases certain other creditors). For example, denying child support debtors driver's licenses, professional licenses, seizing tax refunds, and throwing the judgment debtor in jail for willfully failing to pay child support when there is an actual ability to pay the child support debt. But, no debtor can be incarcerated merely for inability to pay, if this is established. Collect from guarantors or sureties of the debt including insurance companies in the case of insured claims, and bonding companies in the case of bonded debtors for debts covered by a bond. Similarly, private sector employers are typically liable for all judgments entered in the course of lawsuits naming them against their employees for tortious conduct (e.g. accidents) in the course of their employment and can be a source of collection for a debt. In certain circumstances, usually due to a voluntary mortgage-type agreement but also for certain kinds of debts related to property, a judgment debtor has a lien on real or personal property before the lawsuit is filed that can be enforced as a &quot;secured debt&quot; by seizing the collateral, often, even without finishing a lawsuit. But, ordinary lawsuit judgments usually don't have these rights. Duration Of A Judgment Typically judgments confer these debt collection rights for a fixed period of time, often six years in a court of limited jurisdiction (e.g. small claims court) and often twenty years in a court of general jurisdiction (which typically also has criminal jurisdiction over felonies). Often, these deadlines for collection can be extended and renewed if payment is not made in full during that time period if the judgment creditor takes affirmative legal action to do so in the right time period near the expiration of the judgment. Often a judgment debtor who is judgment proof when the judgment is entered may somehow gain assets (e.g. winning the lottery or receiving an inheritance) many years later at which point the judgment creditor can use the judgment to collect from the judgment debtor. Geographic Scope Of Collection Rights Initially, a judgment applies only in the state where it is entered, but it can easily be transferred to another state in most cases, with a basically administrative effort. The &quot;full faith and credit clause&quot; of the U.S. Constitution makes it easy to transfer a money judgment from one U.S. state to another U.S. state. But, the process is trickier in a foreign country. Many U.S. tort judgments (including judgments for defamation) are not automatically recognized in most foreign countries and may have to be reproven to collect on a claim in a foreign country (at least in part and often with fewer damages) from assets only subject to the foreign country's jurisdiction. If a U.S. person diverts or transfers assets to a country where a U.S. judgment cannot be enforced, however, with an intent to harm that creditor or creditors in general, that U.S. person can often be held in contempt of court and incarcerated until those assets are voluntarily repatriated. Voluntarily Repayment A judgment debtor can voluntarily pay amounts owed on a judgment and often does so in order to reduce the amount of post-judgment interest that accrues on the debt. The judgment debtor and judgment creditor can agree to payment plans or other resolutions in lieu of using the formal rights set forth above. &quot;Voluntary&quot; in this sense, however, is a somewhat loaded term. In practice, the terms and amounts of &quot;voluntary&quot; payments of judgment debts are negotiated &quot;in the shadow&quot; of the judgment creditor and judgment debtor's formal legal collection rights and defenses, with the parties sharing in some kind of windfall arising from the fact that collection costs are reduced when there is a voluntary repayment rather than formal legal action. Creditors Rights Related To Gifts And Third-Party Trusts Judgment creditors generally can't collect out of benefits provided in kind for the benefit of a judgment debtor gratuitously by a third-party with no wealth or income traceable to the judgment debtor who has no duty to pay a third-party judgment. For example, a judgment creditor can't collect from a house owned by a wife prior to marriage and titled in wife's name and not derived from husband's assets, in a non-community property state, where a husband lives rent-free and with food and health care provided free of cost, with his wife, if the judgment debt is not for household necessities). Similarly, assets in a discretionary spendthrift trust set up by the parents of a non-disabled adult judgment debtor to which the judgment debtor did not directly or indirectly contribution, which makes distributions to the judgment debtor only by making purchase for the benefit of the judgment debtor that don't give rise to non-exempt property of the judgment debtor can't be reached by a judgment creditor. Fighting Money Judgments Judgment debtors can appeal a money judgment, or seek to have it set aside, for narrow legal reasons, most of which have short deadlines. Once there are no appeals left and the most common post-judgment motions have been exhausted, the judgment is final and there are far fewer ways to set it aside (usually, discharge in bankruptcy, expiration of the judgment for being too old, and the argument that the court didn't have jurisdiction to enter the judgment in the first place are the main ways to set aside a final judgment where the main deadlines have already expired. The relevant deadlines usually run from the date that the money judgment is entered even if the debtor was unaware that the money judgment was entered). A judgment debtor, pending appeal, can post a bond for an amount greater than the amount of the judgment (125% plus anticipated appellate court costs in Colorado) to prevent the judgment creditor from collecting by these means pending appeal, from which the judgment is payable if the appeal is unsuccessful in whole or in part. A bankruptcy also temporarily suspends collection efforts without court approval in order to allow for an ordinary liquidation and distribution of assets and/or reorganization of a debtor's financial affairs. A &quot;debt collector&quot; as that is defined under state and federal law respectively, has various legal rules that the debt collector must follow when collecting debts that result in penalties (although rarely the loss of any ability to enforce a judgment debt) if not complied with, which can be enforced by debtors, in class action lawsuits, or by the relevant government officials (often the U.S. Justice Department and state attorneys-general). Bankruptcy For Individuals A judgment debtor can file for bankruptcy, if this option is available, in which case the collection of the judgment is handled in the bankruptcy process. A Chapter 7, once assets available at the time of filing are distributed to creditors, discharges some, but not all, kinds of debts. Some kinds of debts (e.g. most intentional tortious conduct judgments including most defamation judgments) can't be discharged in bankruptcy if a timely objection to discharge of that debt is filed by the debtor in a bankruptcy case. More complicated kinds of bankruptcies are available for individuals under Chapters 11, 12 and 13, which usually involve payment plans and/or customized treatment of certain assets. In most but not all bankruptcies (even under Chapter 7), an individual debtor must enter into a payment plan to creditors in addition to giving up all non-exempt assets. Disposition Of A Judgment Creditor's Claims At Death One a judgment debtor dies, if there is a judgment outstanding, the judgment creditor can file a claim in the estate of the judgment debtor and that is paid to the extent that there are funds available and not exempt from creditor's claims in order of priority under the law. But, next of kin are not responsible for a judgment debtor's debts. Probate estates cannot file for bankruptcy, but a probate proceeding often has an impact on creditors similar to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy (although by no means identical). Entity Debtors The analysis is similar, but bankruptcy works differently and there are far fewer exemptions from creditors, in the case of a judgment owed by an entity that is a judgment debtor to a judgment creditor. A full treatment of entity insolvency proceedings is beyond the scope of a reasonable answer to this question. Entities filing Chapter 7 bankruptcies and availing themselves of non-bankruptcy insolvency proceedings don't have their debts discharged, but become shells with debts, but not assets since all of their assets get distributed to creditors. Entities that reorganize under Chapter 11 can arrange to pay creditors less than the full amount that they are owed subject to some basic ground rules which usually entitled creditors to at least as much over the duration of a Chapter 11 plan as the creditor would receive in a Chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy.
Can the subject actually sue me in England, or is it possible to sue only in the EU country I posted the article from, or in the US where the article is actually hosted? Yes. If the online encyclopedia is available in the UK, then you have libelled them in the UK and, indeed, in every country where it is available. They can choose to sue in and under the laws of any country where they were libelled. If the subject can and does sue in England, what happens exactly? This is laid out in the Civil Procedure Rules Am I correct in presuming that I will be notified of this by mail and asked to enter a defence? You will definitely need to be served with the Particulars of Claim, however, this may come by other methods than snail mail. If so, what happens if I ignore the matter? Will a default judgment against me necessarily be entered, or will the court duly consider the plaintiff's case, perform the bare minimum investigation/reasoning necessary to determine which arguments of theirs are (un)sound, and so possibly rule in my favour? A default judgement will be entered providing the Particulars of Claim show a cause of action on its face. The court will not examine any evidence or enquire into the veracity of the statements made on the Particulars of Claim. In short, unless the plaintiff has ballsed something up - you lose. If I do choose to respond, can I hire an England-based lawyer to handle everything remotely, or can I be compelled to physically attend the court in England? You are generally not required to attend court in a civil matter unless you need to testify. Even then, arrangements can be made for remote testimony. If the court rules for the plaintiff and awards damages, can this judgment be enforced in the EU, or would it apply only in the UK? It can be enforced in the EU. As a courtesy or by treaty, domestic jurisdictions will enforce foreign judgements in most cases. If the court rules in my favour, would I recoup my legal fees? You will probably recoup some but not all of your legal fees, say 50-60%. Costs orders are complicated - talk to your lawyer.
Sec. 171.208(c) of the law provides: (c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a court may not award relief under this section in response to a violation of Subsection (a)(1) or (2) if the defendant demonstrates that the defendant previously paid the full amount of statutory damages under Subsection (b)(2) in a previous action for that particular abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter, or for the particular conduct that aided or abetted an abortion performed or induced in violation of this subchapter. The apparent intention, as I see it, is that a defendant is only supposed to have to pay the $10,000 damages once, so that it's not possible for a large number of plaintiffs to sue and collect. Some others have pointed out that there may be a loophole in case there are judgments in several cases before the defendant pays for the first one, and that in such a situation the defendant might be required to pay more than once. It doesn't seem to me, on its face, that such a loophole was intended, but we may have to wait and see how courts handle it. In any case, it would seem that the defendant could minimize this possibility by paying the judgment as quickly as possible.
Some simplified points of basic defamation law as background: A critical element of defamation law is that the defendant said something false. You therefore can't win a defamation case if it's based on a statement that can't be proven false: &quot;You are annoying.&quot; &quot;You are ugly.&quot; &quot;You are a bad lawyer.&quot; If a statement can't be proven false, it is considered opinion. Statments of opinion are virtually always protected by the First Amendment. Powell's brief relies on this framework to argue that because her statements were statements of opinion, no defamation could have occurred. It's like defending against a murder charge by saying that no one died. Although it isn't generally referred to as the &quot;reasonable person standard,&quot; reasonableness comes into this question because part of the calculus in assessing whether a statement is fact or opinion is to ask whether a reasonable person would understand the statement to be making an assertion of fact. Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). By leaning into that language, Powell is not saying that reasonable people would not have any reaction or would not have any specific reaction to her statements; instead, she is saying that reasonable people would not have understood her statements to be assertions of fact. Her argument seems to turn on the fact that she was speaking as an attorney representing a political candidate in a lawsuit, and that reasonable people understand statements made in that context to be &quot;inherently prone to exaggeration and hyperbole” and &quot;view them only as claims that await testing by the courts through the adversary process.&quot; For what it's worth, that seems to me like a pretty weak argument. While people expect a certain amount of puffery from their candidates, they also expect that lawyers representing the President of the United States aren't going into court with frivolous allegations. More importantly, though, I think she's running the analysis incorrectly. Rather than asking whether a reasonable person would understand her statements to assertions of fact, she's asking whether a reasonable person would think that she was prone to exaggerate in the setting in which she made those statements. As I understand it, a speaker cannot cloak statements of fact from liability by merely refraining from uttering them until she finds herself in a context where people expect some amount of loose speech. Even if you're a partisan hack with no credibility appearing on a TV show hosted by another partisan hack with no credibility, you generally can't accuse your opponent of being a murderer or child molester or something like that. Those are still assertions of fact, even if they're bookended with statements that &quot;Donald Trump is the greatest president this country will ever have.&quot; The brief does not rely at all on Hustler or the First Amendment protections for parody that were discussed in the previous answer. These tests are closely related, however, as both defenses claim that the speech was not &quot;false&quot; in the relevant sense.
Bottom line I'd tread pretty carefully here. If you paid $2000 for the photo, you might want to check to see if it came with a licensing agreement. Background One way to view this is through the lens of privacy. The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652A subjects privacy invaders to liability for the resulting harm to the interests of the other. Because you mention public personas and your facts don't involve disclosing private details, negative publicity, or interfering with seclusion, one might think appropriation of name or likeness applies. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy. Comment (a) to this section explains that a person's identity is in the nature of a property right. Courts have tended to recognize an individual's interest in the exclusive use of his or her own identity, going so far as to require licensing for usage. The most common way to violate this &quot;property right&quot; is by appropriating someone's name or likeness to promote a business or product. Cases abound on the subject, but a classic one is White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992). To summarize, Samsung ran a picture-based ad featuring a futuristic robot dressed in an evening gown and turning &quot;Wheel of Fortune&quot;-styled letters. Vanna White was nonplussed and brought suit, which she won on appeal. In its opinion, the Ninth Circuit argued the operative question wasn't how Samsung appropriated her likeness, but whether they had done so. The point of citing White here is simply to observe that a person's &quot;likeness&quot; probably extends even further than mere photo reproduction. Back to your facts: posting actual images of celebrities for a commercial purpose appears a much more clear cut appropriation of likeness than White. While it may seem similar, I'd distinguish your situation from that of restaurant &quot;Walls of Fame&quot;---which showcase signed photos of celebrities with the owner---in that the celebrities you mention weren't using your product or service at the time of the photograph. You might argue the photos aren't being used for advertising, but the plaintiff would counter that you posted them on a client-facing business website. In the Ninth Circuit this would be a question of whether there was an appropriation, not the way in which it was accomplished. For argument's sake, assume the court agrees your usage isn't commercial. Even that doesn't necessarily mean you're in the clear. In § 652C, and varying state-by-state, non-commercial purposes are also subject to scrutiny: Comment (b). Apart from statute, however, the rule stated is not limited to commercial appropriation. It applies also when the defendant makes use of the plaintiff's name or likeness for his own purposes and benefit, even though the use is not a commercial one, and even though the benefit sought to be obtained is not a pecuniary one. Statutes in some states have, however, limited the liability to commercial uses of the name or likeness. It's important to remember the Restatement isn't binding: it simply attempts to &quot;restate&quot; what courts (which are binding) have had to say on the topic. If you paid a lot of money for the photo, it might pay to see if it came with a licensing agreement.
In the US it's very simple: How does the party that makes the lawsuit get the money in this scenario? They don't. Winning a lawsuit against a person is a legal confirmation that they really do owe you the money. It also gives you the ability to do certain things to try to collect: you could seize their assets or garnish their wages. If they don't have any assets or any income then you are out of luck. You can't take what doesn't exist. As the saying goes, "you can't squeeze blood from a turnip". A bit of legal jargon sometimes used here is to say that such a defendant is judgment proof. Even if you win a lawsuit against them, it won't do you any good, because they just don't have any money. If the person cannot pay it off, does it transfer over to their relatives? No. People are not responsible for the debts of their relatives.
You cannot be successfully sued nor charged with a crime in the US merely because a movie, book, or other work is violent. Consider the rape scenes in the movie Deliverance, or John Hersey's The Wall, a 1950 novel which describes in detail the Warsaw Ghetto and the massacre and torture of its inhabitants by the Nazis during WWII. Or Plevier's Stalingrad, a 1940s novel about the aftermath of the Battle of Stalingrad, also during WWII, and the suffering of both Russian and German soldiers and civilians there. (Both novels were later filmed in less violent versions.) Many other examples could easily be mentioned. Triggering anxiety or PTSD in a reader or watcher would not be grounds for a suit either -- attempts to bring such suits have been dismissed. Claims that violent works inspire or encourage crime or anti-social acts have led to attempts to regulate such works, from comic books in the 1950s to video games in the 1990s. None of these works have prevailed. The so-called Comics Code Authority survived for a time because it was a strictly voluntary process -- some publishers never submitted content to the CCA censors. The Motion Picture Production Code was similarly voluntary, as is the current system of movie ratings. Works that defame someone can be the subject of libel suits. But to win such a suit in the US, the plaintiff must show that statements were made that were false, and not matters of opinion. The plaintiff must also show that such statements were &quot;of and concerning&quot; the plaintiff, that is that they were specifically about the plaintiff. The plaintiff must in most cases further show actual harm to the plaintiff's reputation, unless the false statements were of the limited category known as per se libel, which give rise to a presumption of harm. These include false claims of improper business or professional conduct, false claims that the plaintiff committed a serious crime, or false claims of sexual improprieties. Moreover, in many cases in the US the plaintiff must show actual malice, that is that the defamer made the false statements knowing them to be false, or with reckless disregard for whether or not they were true. This applies when the person bringing suit is a public official or public figure. Mere general violence will not be grounds for a libel suit. Incitement Several comments have asked if violent depictions could constitute incitement and therefore be unlawful. The current rule in the US is that speech (or writing) can only be punished as incitement if it is &quot;directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action&quot;. This language comes from Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), and has thus been stable for over 50 years. Prior to that the US Supreme Court used the &quot;clear and present danger&quot; test, first adopted in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) The actual passage from Schenck was: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. In Brandenberg the Supreme Court held Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute unconstitutional, because that law generally criminalized simple advocacy of violence. Under neither test would a book or movie that simply depicted violence be subject to legal action simply for that reason. A work would have to specifically advocate violence. Under the current Brandenberg test the work would have to urge people to violent lawbreaking right away, when it is read or watched. and actual lawbreaking would need to occur, or be reasonably likely to occur, for legal action to be constitutional. Actions against incitement under this test have been largely aimed at speeches before crowds or groups, urging them to riot or take other violent and unlawful action right then. While a book, movie, or video could be incitement under this test, it would need to be much more than just violent, it would need to strongly advocate present unlawful violence. That is not what the question asked about.
The important question is: was the £200 a fine (which is paid to the state) or compensation (which is paid to you)? Assuming it was a fine He doesn't (at the moment) owe you anything. However you can sue him for damages. Usually a claim for damages is time-barred after six years (and it is now seven years). However you weren't able to sue him yourself until you were 18, so you may have a couple of years left. However the clock may have started ticking immediately after the attack, on the grounds your parents or guardians could have sued. Talk to a solictor about this possibility; they should give you a free 30 minute consultation, and would probably take a case on a contigency fee (no-win no-fee) basis if it has any chance. In principle, you could have applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation - but you are too late for that; you have to apply within two years (there are some exceptions, but none seem to apply to you). Assuming it was compensation He owes you £200. Now you need to enforce that payment - and again, the problem may be the six year clock. You will definitely need to talk to a lawyer about that. My gut feeling is that the £200 was probably a fine rather than compensation.