Judgement For $0.00?

[Anonymous]

ok, so i have the following entry on TU:

Civil judgement filed on Nov 27, 2006

TypeCase numberDate filedDate reportedAmountPlaintiffAccount Designator

Civil judgement

XXX

Nov 27, 2006

Nov 27, 2006

$0

Parkview Apts

Individual

is it right that i have a judgement on credit that i was sued for not even a penny?? im confused.

i looked up the public records database, and the judgement lists like this (no idea what all the abbreviations mean).

Please advise.

11-27-2006	XXX	1	XXX	XXX	Nov 29 2006 8:28:51:097AM	-	$ 0.00
	G.JONES:FED, PL APPEARS, DF FTA JUDGMENT FOR THE PL FOR POSS ONLY, ALL AS PER JE

[Anonymous]

Were you ever evicted?

[Anonymous]

hhmmm i cant recall if i technically was or not. I moved out and they rerented.

is it possible to have it on credit when they didnt sue for any amount?

should that/could that be removed?

if not, shouldnt it automatically be 'satisfied'?

[BrownBee]

The translation of the legalese is (to the best of my ability): FED (Final Eviction Dispositon) PL APPEARS (plaintiff appears) DF FTA (defendant failed to appear) JUDGEMENT FOR THE PL FOR POSS. ONLY (judgement for the plaintiff for possession only) ALL AS PER JE (all as per judgment entered)

[BrownBee]

And it doesn't seem that they could file an eviction even for possession when you vacated voluntarily.

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

hhmmm i cant recall if i technically was or not. I moved out and they rerented.

is it possible to have it on credit when they didnt sue for any amount?

should that/could that be removed?

if not, shouldnt it automatically be 'satisfied'?

---

At some point the landlord filed an eviction so you would have to move and he could get possession of the property in order to re-rent it. 

The judgment for “possession only” happens when the sheriff is unable to obtain “personal service” on the defendant. Due process ordinarily requires any legal process, including a detainer warrant, to be “personally served” on the defendant. That ordinarily means actually putting the warrant in the defendant’s hands. This requirement ensures that the defendant is given notice of the proceedings so that he may appear and defend himself.

Getting possession of the property is the primary function of the possession only judgment.  But, the landlord could sue for late rent/damages later.

[Anonymous]

It was probably already done before he vacated, which is legal.

[Anonymous]

hhmmm...ok thanks for all the input guys.

so, is this something that can be removed from CR?

if so, how?

[BrownBee]

I see. So how does he address this issue in terms of his CR?

[Anonymous]

What state are you in? 

I had it happen to me once and when I moved out the landlord had to go to the court and drop the case.