Civil court cases usually end with a judgment of some sort. A judgment is essentially a court decision rendered in favor of one party and against the other. Most decisions are money judgments as well, but ‘most’ doesn’t mean ‘all’.
It is possible to get a court judgment that doesn’t involve any type of monetary compensation. That’s why most state laws distinguish between money judgments and non-money judgments. In the case of the former, collecting on a money judgment is left up to the winning party, thereafter referred to as the judgment creditor. The losing party is the judgment debtor.
When Money Is Involved
Courts can render different types of decisions when money is involved. For example, Salt Lake City judgment collection specialists Judgment Collectors says a fair number of the judgments they work on are the result of previously unpaid bills. In other words, a person doesn’t pay a bill so the company he owes takes him to court. If the company wins the case, the judgment will probably include:
- the original amount owed
- the company’s court costs and attorney’s fees
- any money spent on collection efforts
- interest on the outstanding balance of the debt.
Money judgments do not need to be the result of unpaid bills. They can be rendered in civil cases involving other matters. Two examples are personal injury and breach of contract. In a personal injury case, a plaintiff may be awarded monetary damages to cover healthcare costs and lost income. In a breach of contract case, a court may order monetary compensation rather than requiring the offending party to fulfill its contractual obligations.
When Money Isn’t Involved
Getting back to the main question, not all judgments necessarily involve money. Most do, especially given the fact that losing parties are often forced to pay the winning party’s legal expenses, at the very least. But there are times when no money changes hands.
A good example would be a civil lawsuit brought by a group of citizens in hopes of preventing a local law from being implemented. They are not asking for monetary compensation. They are not seeking any type of damages. They only want the court to put the brakes on the law in question.
A judgment in favor of the plaintiffs would result in an injunction against the law. Again, no money would change hands. It is unlikely a court would order the local government to pay the plaintiffs’ legal expenses. Those expenses would be covered by the plaintiffs and any others who choose to donate to their cause.
Why Judgments Instead of Verdicts
You might be wondering why civil courts render judgments instead of verdicts. In the end, it is more semantics than anything else. Where civil courts render judgments, criminal courts render verdicts. But both are simply rendering decisions based on the evidence presented.
The biggest difference between the two is establishing liability versus guilt. In a civil case, courts are looking at the liability of one party or the other. Criminal court cases are about guilt or innocence. There is a significant difference. Being found liable is a recognition of one party’s obligation to another. Being found guilty means a defendant actually broke the law.
Regardless of the differences between civil and criminal court, the fact remains that not all civil judgments involve money. States distinguish between money judgments and non-money judgments for that reason. A money judgment involves some sort of financial compensation that could include legal fees and interest. A non-money judgment is a decision that deems the actions of one party as harmful to the other. That’s really it in a nutshell.
