Skip to main content

Enforcement of Money Judgments Are Not Usually This Titillating

From press accounts (I make no representation of the accuracy of anything in the press accounts):

A New York investment banker (Hugh Levey) worth $29 million has a judgment against him for $1.3 million for making a bad investment. The "judgment creditor" (the person or organization that has the judgment) is a company called Pensmore, which gave Mr. Levey the money to invest.

Once you have a money judgment against another party (called the "judgment debtor"), you can do things like restrain bank accounts and send restraining notices to other people who owe the judgment debtor money or may be giving the debtor money. The notice says you can't give any money to the judgment debtor, etc., because any such money should be used to satisfy the judgment. New York law gives judgment creditors very broad powers to look for money to satisfy judgments.

Apparently, Mr. Levey has not paid the judgment, which has now opened up aspects of his personal life that I'm sure he would have preferred to keep quiet. Pensmore claims it sent restraining notices to a Claire Gruppo, who may have been making attorney fee payments to Mr. Levey's divorce attorney for a divorce he's going through. Pensmore's lawyers say those payments are a violation of the restraining notice it sent her.

Because of all of this, it has come out that Mr. Levey has been having an affair with Ms. Gruppo, who is also his business partner. Pensmore has brought a motion against Ms. Gruppo for contempt for violating the restraining notice it sent.

I've been involved in numerous enforcements of money judgments over the years. They are usually not this interesting.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Respond to Demands for Evidence or Be Prepared to Have Your Case Thrown Out!

The evidence or fact-gathering phase of a lawsuit is called "discovery". Each party is entitled to demand various kinds of evidence from the other party or parties in preparation for a possible trial. Two common kinds of discovery demands are a "Demand for Discovery and Inspection" and "Interrogatories" (which are written questions, answered in writing, under oath). (Psst: Interrogatories are basically a waste of time, but that will be left for another day.) In a recent decision , a New York appeals court affirmed the ruling of a lower court, throwing out a case for plaintiff's failing to respond to defendants' discovery demands. In that case, an LLC sued an architecture firm for malpractice and breach of contract. During the discovery phase, defendants architects served plaintiff with a Demand for Discovery and Inspection and Interrogatories. You only have 20 days to respond or object to discovery demands, or you lose a lot of rights in how yo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Know Your Rights: Money/Remedy at Law vs. Equitable Relief

When you bring a lawsuit (or some other kind of action or proceeding) in court, you are asking the court to give you some kind of relief. Generally speaking, that relief is either money (called "damages" or "money damages" or a "remedy at law") or equitable relief. Everyone knows what money is. What is "equitable relief"? It is relief other than money. Some examples of equitable relief (or "relief at equity" or an "equitable remedy") are:  specific performance of a contract -- you entered into a contract with another party for them to do something; they failed to do it; you sue them to force them to perform as they agreed to in the contract an injunction -- you bring an action to make another party do something or stop doing something rescission of contract -- you entered into a contract; you believe there is a problem with the contract, or the other side committed fraud, or the other side can't perform its oblig...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consumer Law Update: FTC sues DIRECTV for Deceptive Business Practices

I'm sure most people think that "of course" big businesses are constantly, intentionally, ripping people off and are engaged in deceptive business practices. As a lawyer, my inclination is I can't believe a big business, with lots of executives and lots of lawyers looking things over, could possibly offer promos or services that are so misleading or deceptive that they are illegal. They can't possibly be that dumb. Sometimes I'm wrong. For instance, the Federal Trade Commission has sued DIRECTV in San Francisco federal court for engaging in deceptive and misleading business practices in violation of federal law. DIRECTV was telling consumers, hey, look at our low monthly rates and look at all the great stuff you get, come sign up with us! However, DIRECTV failed to adequately disclose that, oh, by the way, in order to get that great deal, you have to sign a two-year contract; those low rates are only good for the first year; your monthly bill could go ...
Post a Comment
Read more