Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)

Citation: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Parent Document: Kaushansky v. Stonecroft Attorneys, APC (2025)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2025-03-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10356658/kaushansky-v-stonecroft-attorneys-apc/ ↗

Full Text

1,160 chars

2
v. O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 693,
700, fn. 3; Rubin v. Ross (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 153, 161.) Just
because the defendant in the underlying case (here, the landlord)
may not have the assets to satisfy a judgment at the time the
court would have entered it does not mean the defendant will not
have assets to satisfy part or all of the judgment at any time
during the next 20 years. And the Enforcement of Judgment Law
gives judgment creditors a wide variety of tools to find and levy
on the assets of judgment debtors, some of which are not
available in pretrial discovery in civil cases. 2 Collectibility is a
post-judgment issue, not part of the plaintiff’s burden of proof at
trial.
       Finally, the rule requiring the legal malpractice plaintiff to
prove the defendant in the underlying case had sufficient assets
(at the time of the trial) to satisfy a judgment ignores the
economic reality that all judgments, regardless of the ability of
the judgment debtor at a particular point in time to pay them,
have value. Judgments are assigned, sold, and transferred
among judgment creditors, collection agencies, and “creditors’

Other Sections in This Document (56)

Full Text