Legal Definitions - quare executionem non

Q.E.N. stands for quare executionem non.

This Latin phrase translates to "why execution not." In legal contexts, quare executionem non refers to a formal legal challenge or a court order that requires a party to explain why a judgment or court decision should not be enforced or carried out. It is typically used when a party believes there is a valid reason to prevent or delay the execution (enforcement) of a judgment that has already been issued. The party receiving this challenge must then present arguments or evidence to the court demonstrating why the judgment should proceed as planned.

Here are some examples to illustrate this concept:

• Example 1: New Evidence or Changed Circumstances

  A court issues a judgment ordering a construction company to pay a significant sum to a client for breach of contract. Before the payment is made, the construction company discovers previously hidden documents that strongly suggest the client was also at fault, potentially reducing the company's liability. The company could file a quare executionem non, asking the court to halt the enforcement of the payment order until this new evidence can be considered. The company is essentially asking, "Why should this judgment be executed when new information has come to light?"

  This example illustrates the term because the construction company is challenging the enforcement of the judgment by presenting a reason (new evidence) why it should not proceed, requiring the court to reconsider the execution.

• Example 2: Procedural Irregularity

  A court issues an order allowing a creditor to seize a debtor's assets to satisfy an unpaid loan. The debtor believes that they were never properly notified of the original lawsuit, which is a fundamental procedural requirement. The debtor could file a quare executionem non, arguing that the judgment should not be enforced due to this lack of proper notice. They are asking, "Why should this judgment be executed when the legal process leading to it was flawed?"

  Here, the debtor is using the term to challenge the enforcement of the asset seizure order, citing a procedural error as the reason why the execution should not occur. The creditor would then need to demonstrate why, despite the alleged error, the execution should still proceed.

• Example 3: Subsequent Agreement or Payment

  A court orders a landlord to pay damages to a tenant for failing to maintain the property. After the judgment is issued but before it is enforced, the landlord and tenant reach an out-of-court settlement where the landlord agrees to a reduced payment, and the tenant agrees not to pursue the original judgment. If the tenant later attempts to enforce the original, higher judgment, the landlord could file a quare executionem non, presenting the settlement agreement as proof that the original judgment should no longer be executed. The landlord is asking, "Why should the original judgment be executed when we have already reached a new, binding agreement?"

  This demonstrates the term because the landlord is challenging the enforcement of the original judgment by providing a valid reason (the subsequent settlement) why it should not be carried out. The tenant would then need to explain why, despite the settlement, the original judgment should still be enforced.