Judgment Proof Defendants
Obtaining Judgment from someone who cannot pay.
By Michael A Brown
In recent 2 court cases in the Small Claims Court at 159 Cedar Street, in Sudbury, David Murray of Eco Life Home Improvements Inc. was found to have owed $30,000 combined. One of the awards was for the maximum allowed in Small Claims Court of $25,000.
According to an article in Canadian Contractor and reported on Sudbury.com, the judge in the case, Justice Gerald E. Guimond, advised the “winner” of the $25,000 court settlement “that it is an award you will never collect on sir as he has at least 10 matters go before me”
“that it is an award you will never collect on sir as he has at least 10 matters to go before me”
Justice Gerald E. Guimond
In situations like this, when a contractor has not performed what he was contracted to do, the only recourse is to sue, or take that person or company to court.
When the Justice in this case eludes to the fact that the Plaintiff will likely not collect on his money implies that Murray and Eco Life are now Judgment Proof.
There are many things that make is statement true.
Firstly, Eco-life is Incorporated or “Inc.” which makes it an entity all on its own. David Murray, unless he personally signed and guaranteed the contracts as well as Eco-life cannot be held responsible for the debts. Murray’s personal assets are essentially shielded from the business or corporate assets.
Secondly, Murray and Eco life have no money or he would have returned the deposits that he took from his clients. There was also no materials bought with the deposit money which indicates that there is no stock to sell to recover some of the award.
Murray has no ability to make new money to meet his financial obligations. Eco life has no business licence with the City of Greater Sudbury, is facing criminal charges for theft and the selling of someone else’s tools in North Bay. I am assuming he cannot get credit to purchase materials to start any new jobs even if he wanted to.
He also was evicted from his office on Notre Dame street at the end of April.
With all this in mind, why litigate?
As Justice Guimond asserted, this man has been doing this for at least 10 years and essentially, why isn’t he in jail for ripping off the citizens of Sudbury.
My thought is that, by litigating, this is the only other way we can make him pay and at least get some closure for having the money taken by Murray and Eco Life.
Judgment and a paper stating that we are owed that amount that is missing may be the only comfort we receive. We can take comfort that all those that are in the same situation have stood up and been counted.
After awhile though, a good legal professional will have to advise their client that there is no longer an advantage to going to court as good money will be thrown out after bad. No that I believe that Murray and Eco Life are Judgment Proof, the cost of hiring legal services and filing a claim does not appear financially sound.
The only silver lining might be that when all the numbers have been counted, we can ensure that David Murray and Eco Life do not do this to anymore families.