Thank you so much for using JustAnswer.com. I truly aim to please you as a customer, but please keep in mind that I do not know what you already know or don't know, or with what you need help, unless you tell me. If I did not answer the question you thought you were asking, please respond with the specific question you wanted answered. PLEASE use REPLY to EXPERT if you would like more information or if you feel something was not included in your answer.
Kindly remember the ONLY WAY experts receive any credit at all for spending time with customers is if you click on OK, GOOD or EXCELLENT SERVICE even though you have made a deposit or are a subscription customer. YOU MUST COMPLETE THE RATING FOR THE EXPERT TO XXXXX CREDIT, if not the site keeps your money on deposit.
Also remember, sometimes the law does not support what we want it to support, but that is not the fault of the person answering the question, so please be courteous.
Is there no divesting of the chose in action from a corporate entity that is no longer in existence, but the asset which the chose in action represents to a bankruptcy court could be assigned to an individual, and then possessed as any asset by an individual, and as such, that asset (the chose in action) can be as any individual's property -- enforced by an individual pro se?I understand the all prior case law cited on the issue you've explained here; but my problem is that the process of divesting an asset from a corp. entity that no longer exists, shouldn't be held to the same rule of possession as if the entity did exist. A chose in action is merely an asset; and should be transferable as with any asset, and once done, receive the individual privileges any other asset to be prosecuted would receive. My metaphor would be a car with a title. A corporation assigns that title to a shareholder in exchange for a shareholder's loan after the corp. dissolves as part of its closing up its affairs. Any litigation over that car, from an accident, theft, wrongful lien, whatever, could be prosecuted or defended by the owner of that car. So what's the difference?
(All the traditional case law that supports the current view of the Courts on this issue pertains to more blatant examples where the Corp. still existed, and/or where the chose in action that was assigned was not filtered through a bankruptcy process that specifically Ordered the Trustee to abandon it, as with the instant example hypothetically being asked about.)
Paul, I don't mean to be argumentative, or even anal, and I appreciate your POV because this is exactly what Courts have described. But there is case law on a chose of action that specifically states a chose of action does not die with the party it originated from. Granted, this is an individual, but taking your own observation into this point, so too is a corporation, albeit fictional. When it has been dissolved, it is "dead." But the chose of actions it had live on. Where I am at a loss on your explanation, is linking the original claim of an active corporation solely to its legend as if there is and never can be a divesting of that chose in action even long after it has ceased to exist. If a chose of action is assignable, and Bankruptcy Courts have so agreed many times, and if the chose in action is an asset, I fail to see what case law or statutes mandate that once transferred to an "individual," that the full rights of individual ownership -- not corporate ownership -- would not apply. Thus, the right to individually protect and argue that right, as provided in the Constitution for any property. It may be unprecedented, and I am not looking to be the one, but can there not be certain circumstances where a corporate chose in action is seen soley as the asset it is, like a car, which can be possessed by an individual with all the rights thereof?
Paul, it is NOT that I do NOT want to pay an attorney. I've tried. The problem, as I know you are well aware (particularly if you step out of your attorney POV), is that the "system" is so broken, like the medical institutions, that the cost to litigate anything is prohibitive to anything, and anyone smaller than Gulf Oil. "Justice delayed is justice denied" comes to mind. The costs for simple, basic procedures of a claim, review, limine, discovery and so on -- particularly with the "games" that the law provides counsel (on both sides) to play on technicalities that are not needed, and not in the best interest of the law, because the "law" and the semantics of what means what has become so convoluted it requires the baby sitting of the Appellate Courts and beyond to keep some semblance of "justice" BUT ONLY for those who can afford it. And the operative word there is "afford" because it too is a moving target. The ultimate hypocrisy is embodied in the not too long ago Supreme Court decision giving corporate funding of elections equal power as the individual; hence: no more individual (citizen) represenation, because they are suboridated behind the wishes of the Beltways' "K" street mob, and all the Fortune 1000's they represent. That is why I sue individually; but I digressed. As usual, thanks... and I DO understand and I DO grasp the concept. It's just that it "sucks." (But who am I?)
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).