Is there a lawyer in the house? need a quick question answer if I may

[Ohioboy]

Last edited Thu Oct 5, 2023, 08:44 PM - Edit history (2)

If a jury finds someone liable and the judge agrees, is the defendant liable at that time, or do all appeals have to be concluded before the defendant is considered liable.

I am totally not a lawyer.

Edited to say:
Thank you to all that replied.

[marybourg]

1. There are no quick answers in the law.

[Ocelot II]

2. That depends. If the defendant loses a civil trial and is required to pay a judgment

but files an appeal, the defendant doesn't have to pay up until the appeal is concluded and he loses. However, as a condition of the appeal, in most cases the defendant will have to post an appeal bond, sometimes called a supersedeas bond, in the amount of the judgment plus interest, to ensure that the judgment is paid if the defendant loses the appeal.

[Ohioboy]

4. is the defendant considered liable until the appeal is concluded if he lost?

[Ocelot II]

6. "Liable" means legally responsible for damages.

At the the defendant was found legally liable by the jury (that is, under the law and the facts he was found responsible for paying damages to the defendant). So you might say he's contingently liable pending an appeal, and the bond will ensure that he can pay up if the appeal fails. He's legally responsible unless/until an appellate court says either he isn't liable at all (based on an error of law by the trial court), or orders a new trial because of some procedural irregularity. If that happens the defendant's liability will have to be reconsidered.

[rsdsharp]

3. Typically, the defendant can appeal, but the judgment is collectible by the plaintiff

unless the defendant files a supersedes bond to stay execution during the appeal. In my state that is typically 125% of the judgment amount. Alternatively, the defendant can ask for a stay of execution of the judgment, but they would usually have to at least demonstrate an inability to purchase the bond. Other states might have somewhat different procedures.

[Ohioboy]

5. Maybe I should give an example

A jury found Trump liable of defaming E. Jean Carrol. Is this statement true, or do all appeals have to be over for it to be true?

[LoisB]

7. The statement is true unless/until an appellate court reverses that jury verdict.

I am not an attorney either.

[rsdsharp]

8. He's still liable until, and unless the final level of appeal says he's not.

However, there’s getting a judgment, and there’s collecting a judgment. There are procedures to prevent the plaintiff from attempting to collect the judgment during the pendency of the appeal. If those procedures aren’t followed, the plaintiff is free to try to collect the judgment, usually after a short period after entry of the judgment — thirty days in my state.

Defendant’s don’t always just write a check when the case is finally over and they lost. The law provides mechanisms to collect the judgment. Non exempt property can be seized and sold, wages can be garnished, bank accounts and cash receipts can be levied on, etc.

[Ohioboy]

14. Thanks for your answer

Leaving aside actually collecting a judgement, I more interested in making sure a statement is accurate.

Is this a true statement:

Trump was found liable by a jury and he is appealing the finding

[rsdsharp]

17. Sure. If you want to be really technical, he wasn't liable

until the Judge entered judgment on the jury verdict. He could have granted a motion for a new trial, entered judgment in favor of Trump notwithstanding the verdict, upped the jury verdict (additur), or lowered the jury verdict (remittitur). Or he could have done what he did — entered judgment on the verdict.

[Ohioboy]

18. thank you

[elleng]

9. Both. NOT satisfying, eh?

What does 'True' mean, in the circumstances???

What is the full meaning of true?
adjective,tru·er, tru·est. being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming to reality or fact; not false: a true story. real; genuine; authentic: true gold; true feelings.

[Ohioboy]

12. True means a jury found him liable but he is appealing

[Effete Snob]

16. Did a doctor find you sick pending a cure?

[Ocelot II]

11. Objectively true and legally true aren't always the same.

In this case, the jury found TFG legally responsible for damages because Carroll established by a preponderance of the evidence that TFG's words met the legal standards for defamation. Objectively true is something else. It is objectively true that the sun rises in the east; you don't have to go to court to prove that by a preponderance of the evidence (at least 51% likely to be true) that the sun rises in the east. At this point you can say that a jury found TFG liable for defamation. If the verdict is overturned on appeal - which is highly unlikely - you can still say that, but TFG will no longer be responsible for damages. Of course this is angels dancing on the head of a pin, which a lot of legal arguments are.

[Effete Snob]

10. Depends on what you mean

Questions are quick. Answers often aren’t.

You can be found “liable” as a preliminary matter in an amount yet to be determined at trial. In that instance of “being liable”, it’s not as if you know how big a check you need to write, so you don’t owe anyone anything yet.

If you mean a trial has concluded as to liability and amount, then if you appeal, you may be required to post a bond in some proportion of the judgment, so that the appeal is not merely a way of avoiding judgment. If you lose the appeal, you lose the bond amount and can further owe post-judgment interest, etc.

But if a trial has concluded as to liability and amount, you owe that money. You can’t, for example, appeal it and then not include it as a liability in connection with any statements of your financial condition you may have to make (for various reasons).

If someone is telling you they have a judgment against them, but it somehow is not a liability, move far away from that person.

[Ohioboy]

13. Is this a true statement: Trump was found liable pending appeal

I hate to use the word appeal and Trump in the same sentence.

[Effete Snob]

15. Are you writing a brief?

There are two proceedings.

In the first, Trump was found liable to Carroll in the amount of $5M. Period. He is not liable “pending appeal”. There is a judgment against him in that amount.

Then, he did it some more. Consequently she pursued additional claims. Last time I heard, he had been found liable in an amount yet to be determined.

But, no, you are never “liable pending appeal”. You hope the appeal is going to render you not liable.

Are you “hungry pending dinner?” No. You’re hungry. Right now.

[Ohioboy]

20. Not writing a brief

Talking to someone who claims trump was not found liable until all his appeals are exhausted.

[Effete Snob]

22. Lol

Do yourself a favor. Explain the Pythagorean Theorem to a dachshund.

It will be just as effective, but you’ll get to spend some time with a cute dog.

[Ohioboy]

23. You're right

I just hate to see friends and family down the rabbit hole. They want to lock up Biden and Hunter based on sketchy stuff, but when Trump actually is found liable in a court of law they can't believe it.

[Effete Snob]

24. Sigh

Here, start with a dachshund made out of right triangles…

[Ocelot II]

19. He was found liable, period.

An appeal might vitiate his liability (though probably not), but the objective truth is that a jury found him liable. It's not necessary to qualify that statement with "pending appeal."

[Ohioboy]

21. Thank you that's what I thought, but I wasn't sure

I was just going by what made sense to me.