Legal Definitions - collateral attack

A collateral attack refers to a legal challenge to the validity of a previous court judgment through a new, separate lawsuit, rather than by directly appealing that judgment to a higher court. Instead of asking an appellate court to review whether the original decision was correct based on the evidence and law presented at the time, a collateral attack argues that the original judgment itself was fundamentally flawed or void from the start.

This type of challenge is typically made when the time limit for a direct appeal has passed, or when a prior judgment is being used in a new legal context, and one party believes that the original court lacked the authority to issue the judgment or that the legal process was severely defective. Common reasons for launching a collateral attack include arguments that the original court lacked proper jurisdiction (meaning it didn't have the legal power over the people or the subject matter of the case) or that a party was denied due process (such as not receiving proper notice of the lawsuit or a fair opportunity to present their side).

• Example 1: Challenging a Default Judgment Due to Lack of Notice

  Imagine a small business owner who was sued for an alleged breach of contract. However, the lawsuit papers were mistakenly sent to an old business address, and the owner never received them. Unaware of the lawsuit, the owner failed to appear in court, and a default judgment was entered against them, ordering them to pay a significant sum. Years later, when a creditor attempts to garnish the owner's bank accounts based on this judgment, the owner files a new lawsuit asking the court to declare the original default judgment void. They argue that because they never received proper notice, their due process rights were violated, and the original judgment is therefore invalid.

  This is a collateral attack because the business owner is not appealing the original judgment to argue that the contract was not breached. Instead, they are initiating a new legal action to challenge the fundamental validity of the default judgment itself, claiming it was flawed from the outset due to a lack of proper notice, which prevented them from participating in the original proceedings.

• Example 2: Disputing a Child Custody Order Based on Jurisdictional Issues

  A couple divorces in State A, and the court issues a child custody order. Years later, one parent moves with the child to State B. The other parent, still in State A, attempts to enforce the original custody order in State B. The parent in State B then files a new legal action in State B, arguing that the original State A court never had proper personal jurisdiction over them during the divorce proceedings (perhaps they were never properly served with papers while residing in State A, or they had already moved away). They seek to have the State A custody order declared invalid and unenforceable in State B.

  This scenario illustrates a collateral attack because the parent in State B is not directly appealing the State A custody order to a higher court in State A. Instead, they are launching a new lawsuit in a different state (State B) to challenge the fundamental authority of the State A court to issue that custody order in the first place, based on a claim of lack of personal jurisdiction.

• Example 3: Invalidating a Property Sale Order from a Court Lacking Authority

  A local municipal court, which typically handles minor offenses and small claims, issues an order for the sale of a large commercial property to satisfy an unpaid parking ticket fine. Years later, a new owner attempts to sell the property, but a title dispute arises. The original property owner files a new lawsuit in a higher state court, arguing that the municipal court's order for the sale of the commercial property was void because municipal courts lack the subject matter jurisdiction (the legal authority) to handle complex real estate transactions of that magnitude. They seek to invalidate the original sale order.

  This is a collateral attack because the original property owner is not appealing the municipal court's decision on the parking ticket itself. Instead, they are initiating a new legal case to challenge the fundamental validity of the municipal court's order to sell the property, asserting that the court exceeded its legal authority (lacked subject matter jurisdiction) to issue such an order, making the original judgment void.