Quiz 13

Spouses A and B were sued jointly and severally for a debt. The trial court rendered a judgment holding both spouses liable. The judgment became final and executory. Subsequently, Spouses A and B divorced. Spouse A claims that because of the divorce, the joint and several liability should now be considered several, and thus, the execution against their individual properties should only be up to half of the judgment debt each.

Can Spouse A successfully argue for a modification of the already final and executory judgment based on the subsequent divorce?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

No. The doctrine of immutability of judgment dictates that once a judgment becomes final and executory, it can no longer be altered, amended, or modified, even if the alteration, amendment, or modification is sought to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or law. The joint and several liability was determined by the court in the final judgment. The subsequent divorce does not operate to change this already established liability.

X Corp. filed a collection suit against Y Inc. During the trial, the parties submitted a compromise agreement where Y Inc. agreed to pay a specific sum in installments. The trial court approved the compromise agreement and rendered a judgment based solely on its terms. Y Inc. failed to make the first installment payment. X Corp. moved for execution of the entire judgment amount. Y Inc. opposed, arguing that execution should only be for the unpaid installment. Can X Corp. immediately seek execution for the entire amount of the judgment based on the approved compromise agreement upon Y Inc.'s default on one installment?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Yes. A judgment based on a compromise agreement is immediately executory. Unless the compromise agreement itself provides otherwise regarding the effect of default on an installment, the entire obligation as stipulated in the judgment becomes due and demandable upon failure to comply with any part of it. The court's approval gives the compromise agreement the force and effect of a judgment. (Related to the principle that a judgment based on a compromise agreement is immediately executory, as seen in cases involving such agreements).

Plaintiff Z filed a complaint for sum of money against Defendant W, attaching a promissory note signed by W. W's answer admitted the genuineness and due execution of the promissory note but claimed that he had already partially paid the obligation, presenting unreceipted personal notes as evidence of payment. Plaintiff Z moved for summary judgment, arguing that there was no genuine issue of fact.

Is there a genuine issue of fact that would preclude the rendition of a summary judgment?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Yes. While the defendant admitted the promissory note, the claim of partial payment, even if supported by arguably weak evidence like unreceipted personal notes, raises a factual issue regarding the outstanding balance. A genuine issue exists if there is a reasonable doubt as to the facts which means the party has presented some credible evidence. The court would need to assess the veracity and extent of the alleged partial payments, which cannot be done summarily. Therefore, summary judgment would be inappropriate at this stage.

After the trial court rendered a judgment against Defendant V, V filed a motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. V presented an affidavit from a witness who claimed to have seen the actual incident and whose testimony would allegedly contradict the plaintiff's key witness. V attached this affidavit to the motion.

Has Defendant V sufficiently proven the ground for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

Possibly, but the court will need to evaluate the requirements for newly discovered evidence. To warrant a new trial on this ground, the movant must show that: (a) the evidence was discovered after trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) the evidence is of such a character as to probably change the result. The affidavit provides the substance of the new evidence, but the court will need to assess whether V exercised reasonable diligence in not presenting this witness earlier and whether the new testimony is indeed likely to alter the outcome of the case. Simply presenting an affidavit is not automatically a guarantee for a new trial; its probative value and the circumstances of its discovery will be scrutinized.  

Plaintiff U received an adverse judgment and filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The motion simply stated that the "judgment is contrary to law and evidence" without specifying the particular points of law or fact that the movant believes were overlooked or misapplied by the court.

Is Plaintiff U's Motion for Reconsideration sufficient in form and substance? What action should the court take?

Evaluate responses using AI:

OFF

Answer explanation

No, Plaintiff U's Motion for Reconsideration is likely insufficient. A motion for reconsideration must clearly and distinctly specify the grounds upon which it is based. Merely stating that the judgment is "contrary to law and evidence" is a general averment and does not adequately point out the alleged errors of the court. The Rules of Court require the movant to specify the findings or conclusions in the judgment that are not supported by the evidence or that are contrary to law, making express reference to the pertinent evidence or legal provisions. The court may deny the motion outright for failing to comply with these requirements.