a litigant who loses in a trial court has the right to judgment in most situations.
a litigant who loses in a trial court has the right to judgment in most situations.
what does a litigant who loses in a trial court have the right to in most situations?
judgment
in north carolina state courts, "mandamus" is authorized as one of the extraordinary writs, under rule 22 of the north carolina rules of appellate procedure. the writ of mandamus may be issued in instances where, for instance, the lower court fails to timely issue a written order after rendition (thus precluding both the possibility of an appeal or enforcement of the rendition and leaving the litigants in limbo). the north carolina court of appeals has spoken on the possible course of action in such situations, and confirmed that petitioning for a writ of mandamus is the only available route. mckyer v. mckyer, 202 n.c.app. 771 at *4 (2010) (unpublished) in mckyer, the lawyer who was unable to persuade the trial court judge to enter an order for about a year, tried to remedy the problem by asking the trial court judge to hold another hearing. disapproving of the attempted resolution via a new hearing, the court of appeals, citing to the supreme court case "in re t.h.t.", explained that a party seeking recourse where the trial court has not entered its orders timely should petition for writ of mandamus. similarly, the writ may issue where the trial court fails or refuses to timely dispose with the litigants' business (for instance, if the judge refuses to hear a case). in north carolina, as elsewhere, the writ is an action against the official, meaning that the petition must be styled "in re public figure x" or "in re judge y". thus, a mandamus petition not only brings the strife of optically making the officer or judge the defendant, but also in theory requires the official / judge to respond "within ten days" "with supporting affidavits". curiously, rule 22(c) provides that "any party" may respond to the petition for writ. the north carolina court of appeals has interpreted this to mean that where, for instance, one litigant demands that the judge enter a previously rendered order, the other litigant in the same case is free to respond instead of (or in addition to) the judge that presides over both of the litigants.
mandamus
legal financing companies normally provide money in the form of a lump sum payment, and generally, no specific account is established for the litigant. if the case proceeds to trial and the litigant loses, the third party funding company receives nothing and loses the money they have invested in the case. in other words, if the litigant loses, he does not have to repay the money. in addition, litigants generally do not have to pay monthly fees after obtaining legal financing. instead, no payments of any kind are made until the case settles or judgment is obtained, which could occur months or years after legal funding is received. accordingly, to qualify for funding with a legal financing company, a litigant's case must have sufficient merit that the company deems its investment in the case to be worth the risk.
legal financing