Legal Definitions - indirect attack

An indirect attack, also known as a collateral attack, refers to a legal challenge to a judgment or order that is made in a separate, new proceeding, rather than through a direct appeal within the original case. Instead of asking a higher court to review the original decision for errors, an indirect attack attempts to undermine the validity or enforceability of that prior judgment in a different legal context. This type of challenge typically argues that the original court lacked jurisdiction or that the judgment was obtained through fraud, making it void or unenforceable.

Here are some examples illustrating an indirect attack:

• Challenging a Criminal Conviction via Habeas Corpus:

  Imagine a person is convicted of a crime in state court and serves their sentence. Years later, new evidence emerges suggesting their constitutional rights were violated during the original trial, such as their defense attorney providing ineffective assistance. The person then files a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, arguing that their conviction is invalid due to these constitutional violations.

  This is an indirect attack because the person is not appealing the original conviction directly through the state appellate courts (which would be a direct attack). Instead, they are initiating a *new* federal proceeding to challenge the legality of their conviction based on issues that were not fully litigated or could not have been litigated on direct appeal, thereby attempting to invalidate the prior state court judgment.

• Disputing a Divorce Decree in a Subsequent Property Claim:

  Consider a couple who divorces, and their divorce decree includes a division of marital assets. Several years later, one spouse discovers that the other spouse intentionally concealed significant financial assets during the divorce proceedings, leading to an unfair property distribution. The aggrieved spouse then initiates a *new* lawsuit, perhaps to set aside the property division portion of the original divorce decree or to seek damages based on the fraud.

  This constitutes an indirect attack because the spouse is not appealing the original divorce decree (the time for direct appeal has long passed). Instead, they are bringing a separate legal action to challenge the validity or effect of a part of that prior judgment, arguing it was obtained improperly through fraudulent means.

• Resisting Enforcement of an Out-of-State Judgment:

  Suppose a business obtains a default judgment against a customer in State A because the customer failed to respond to the lawsuit. The customer then moves to State B, and the business attempts to enforce that judgment in State B's courts. The customer in State B argues that the judgment from State A is invalid because they were never properly served with the lawsuit, meaning the State A court never had proper personal jurisdiction over them.

  This is an indirect attack because the customer is not appealing the default judgment in State A. Instead, they are challenging its enforceability in a *new* proceeding in State B, arguing that the original judgment is void due to a fundamental flaw (lack of jurisdiction) that makes it unenforceable anywhere.