Since it's on the front page of MSN, I thought I'd link this article: Judge: Victim Must Pay Back Thief
It's of course more complicated than this, but the bare basics is a store owner hired a contractor. The store owner paid the contractor thousands of dollars up front to build a building. When the contractor didn't build anything, the store owner took him to court. Store owner won, but the contractor had filed for bankruptcy in the meantime. The way the judges interpreted bankruptcy law, the store owner had to pay back what the contractor stole from him plus lawyer fees! After appeal, the store owner got to keep some of what he had already collected, but he wasn't allowed to get the rest even though he had a right to the money in his suit.
Freakin' ridiculous! What is wrong with bankruptcy law? I understand that the contractor filing for bankruptcy has some protection against his creditors, but he stole from the store owner. It wasn't his money! Gah!
Anyway, back to my practice sets now.
It's of course more complicated than this, but the bare basics is a store owner hired a contractor. The store owner paid the contractor thousands of dollars up front to build a building. When the contractor didn't build anything, the store owner took him to court. Store owner won, but the contractor had filed for bankruptcy in the meantime. The way the judges interpreted bankruptcy law, the store owner had to pay back what the contractor stole from him plus lawyer fees! After appeal, the store owner got to keep some of what he had already collected, but he wasn't allowed to get the rest even though he had a right to the money in his suit.
Freakin' ridiculous! What is wrong with bankruptcy law? I understand that the contractor filing for bankruptcy has some protection against his creditors, but he stole from the store owner. It wasn't his money! Gah!
Anyway, back to my practice sets now.