Criminal courts play an active role in enforcing the verdicts they render. For example, a court may sentence a convicted felon and then order the individual immediately be taken into custody and imprisoned. Civil courts are different. They do not get involved in enforcement with the exception of issuing court orders sought by judgment creditors.

If you have ever wondered why, you are not alone. Many a judgment creditor has wondered the same thing. Yet as Utah-based Judgment Collectors explains, judgment creditors are left to their own devices where enforcement is concerned. For right a wrong, civil law creates a clear line of division between rendering a judgment and enforcing it.

Civil Courts Are Adjudicators

Unlike criminal courts, civil courts are adjudicators. This means their role is to hear disputes between parties and issue binding decisions to legally settle such disputes. Another way to put it is to say that civil courts determine the rights, responsibilities, and liabilities of each party.

In money judgment cases, the court’s task is to determine a liability. But again, the court is an adjudicator. It is not a collection agency. Furthermore, civil courts being directly involved in collection could create conflicts of interest. The simplest and most effective way to avoid such conflicts is to keep courts out of the collection phase.

A Separate Process

Under the law, collecting a money judgment is a separate process from adjudicating the original dispute. Courts are kept out of collection in order to maintain this separation. This is crucial because money judgment enforcement often requires investigative and executive actions that courts are just not well suited to.

Seizing and selling debtor property is the perfect example. A court can issue a writ of execution on behalf of a judgment creditor. That is as far as the court can go. Enforcing the writ is a separate process. It is a process left to the local sheriff. A sheriff’s department is well equipped to forcibly seize a piece of property and sell it whereas a civil court is not.

The Legal Framework

Hand-in-hand with separate processes is the legal framework through which enforcement is pursued. Civil law grants each stakeholder different authority. It is similar to the separation of powers that federal and state governments are built on.

Courts are given the authority to adjudicate civil disputes. Sheriffs are authorized to carry out writs of execution and garnishment. Neither party should infringe on the other’s legal responsibilities. Keeping the jurisdictions separate means neither party can exercise too much authority.

The Need for Due Process

One last thing to consider is due process. Under our system of laws, everyone involved in a civil lawsuit must be given due process. That means county and state courts must observe rules designed to protect the rights of both plaintiff and defendant.

In a money judgment scenario, this could play out in several ways. First, a judgment creditor and debtor could work out a mutually agreeable payment plan. Neither the court nor sheriff would have any say in the matter.

Another possibility is wage garnishment. Under the law, only a certain portion of a debtor’s disposable income is subject to garnishment. A court must follow the law in issuing the writ while the sheriff cannot compel the debtor’s employer to withhold more than the allowed amount. Due process protects the debtor.

It sometimes appears that things would go better for judgment creditors of courts enforced their own money judgments. But when you step back and look at the reasons for limiting courts, the limits make perfect sense. Keeping courts out of enforcement is a safety mechanism that protects litigants.