Originally Posted by Mad_Hatter
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
Originally Posted by skyactiv
My dad is a retired attorney. If you run over a kid on a bicycle, you'd wish you lived in a house instead of renting, trust me.
Shouldn't this be the other way around?
No, because they cannot garnish a primary residence, but they can garnish 20% of your wages, after the judge reviews your living expenses, which means that you ain't NEVER gone get anything but a mud hut.
If you're that screwed because of a judgement stemming from an accident, just file bankruptcy. Unless you were under the influence or found willfully negligent, like intentionally running someone over, you can discharge BOTH personal injury and property damage awards.. unless the harmed party is the federal govt., debts owed to the federal govt are not dischargeable via Ch. 7.
...or you could have a legit policy for about $20/mo more than state minimums with comp. At least, that's how mine shakes out.
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by oilpsi2high
Originally Posted by skyactiv
My dad is a retired attorney. If you run over a kid on a bicycle, you'd wish you lived in a house instead of renting, trust me.
Shouldn't this be the other way around?
No, because they cannot garnish a primary residence, but they can garnish 20% of your wages, after the judge reviews your living expenses, which means that you ain't NEVER gone get anything but a mud hut.
If you're that screwed because of a judgement stemming from an accident, just file bankruptcy. Unless you were under the influence or found willfully negligent, like intentionally running someone over, you can discharge BOTH personal injury and property damage awards.. unless the harmed party is the federal govt., debts owed to the federal govt are not dischargeable via Ch. 7.
...or you could have a legit policy for about $20/mo more than state minimums with comp. At least, that's how mine shakes out.