Legal Definitions - audita querela

The legal term audita querela (pronounced aw-DEE-tuh kwuh-REE-luh) refers to a legal procedure available to someone against whom a court judgment has been entered (known as a "judgment debtor"). It is a request to the court to reconsider or prevent the enforcement of a judgment based on new facts or legal defenses that have arisen or been discovered *after* the original judgment was made.

Unlike an appeal, which argues that the original judgment was wrong based on the information available at the time, audita querela does not claim the judgment itself was flawed when it was issued. Instead, it argues that something significant has changed or been discovered *since* the judgment, making its continued enforcement unfair or unjust. It's a way to seek relief from a judgment's effects when circumstances have materially changed.

• Example 1: Debt Discharge in Bankruptcy

  Imagine a situation where a person, Sarah, is sued by a creditor for an unpaid loan, and a court enters a judgment against her for the outstanding amount. A few months later, Sarah files for bankruptcy, and the court overseeing her bankruptcy case legally discharges (forgives) that specific loan debt. Despite this, the original creditor attempts to garnish Sarah's wages based on the initial judgment. Sarah could file an audita querela, presenting the bankruptcy discharge as a "newly existing legal defense" that arose *after* the judgment was entered. This new legal development makes the continued enforcement of the original judgment unjust.

• Example 2: Post-Judgment Settlement and Payment

  Consider a small business, "Green Gardens Inc.," that obtains a judgment against a former client, Mr. Henderson, for unpaid landscaping services. After the judgment is entered, Mr. Henderson and Green Gardens Inc. negotiate a settlement where Mr. Henderson agrees to pay a reduced amount immediately, and Green Gardens Inc. agrees to consider the debt fully satisfied and drop all collection efforts. Mr. Henderson makes the payment as agreed. However, a few weeks later, Green Gardens Inc.'s collection department, unaware of the settlement, attempts to seize funds from Mr. Henderson's bank account based on the original judgment. Mr. Henderson could use audita querela to present the settlement agreement and proof of payment as "newly discovered evidence" or a "newly existing legal defense" that arose *after* the judgment, demonstrating that the judgment has been satisfied and should no longer be enforced.

• Example 3: Discovery of Identity Theft After Default Judgment

  Suppose a credit card company obtains a default judgment against "David Miller" for an unpaid balance because David never appeared in court. Years later, when the company tries to enforce the judgment by seizing his assets, the actual David Miller discovers that the debt was incurred by an identity thief using his name, and the original lawsuit papers were sent to an old, incorrect address. He now has a police report and bank fraud investigation results confirming the identity theft, which he did not possess or know about when the default judgment was entered. David could file an audita querela, arguing that this "newly discovered evidence" of identity theft, which was not available or presented at the time of the judgment, provides a valid defense against the enforcement of the judgment against him.