Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

rule of marshaling assets

Read a random definition: NAR

A quick definition of rule of marshaling assets:

The rule of marshaling assets is a fair rule that says if a person owes money to two or more creditors, they must first use the money from the fund that is not available to the junior creditor to pay off the senior creditor. This prevents the senior creditor from taking all the money from the only fund available to the junior creditor, which would be unfair. It is also called the marshaling doctrine, rule of marshaling securities, or rule of marshaling remedies.

A more thorough explanation:

The rule of marshaling assets is a legal principle that requires a creditor who has multiple sources of payment to first use the source of payment that is not available to a junior creditor. This principle is used to prevent a senior creditor from unfairly excluding a junior creditor from receiving any payment.

For example, let's say that a senior creditor has a mortgage on a property and a junior creditor has a lien on the same property. If the property is sold, the senior creditor must first use any other available funds to satisfy their debt before using the proceeds from the sale of the property. This ensures that the junior creditor will still receive some payment from the sale.

Another example would be if a company has multiple assets that can be used to pay off debts. If a senior creditor has a claim on one of those assets, they must first use the other assets to satisfy their debt before using the asset that is also available to a junior creditor.

The rule of marshaling assets is an important principle in ensuring fairness in debt repayment and preventing senior creditors from unfairly excluding junior creditors from receiving payment.

rule of law | rule of marshaling liens

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.