[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6213727,"mediaKeyId","3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260","parentId",3674606,"title","Court awards judgment after plaintiff says she lent six-figure sum to acquaintance; judge advises police report and counsel for collection","audioSeconds",648,"startMs",6287000,"endMs",6935000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260&start=6287&end=6935","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260/thumbnail_6287000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6213727/Texas/Court-awards-judgment-after-plaintiff-says-she-lent-six-figure-sum-to-acquaintance-judge-advises-police-report-and-counsel-for-collection","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6213727-ab07b0d912015d44efb23baf65c5d7ee/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156028&Signature=P4tz1OPNRk-gBYyv4PjlrWQ8Uch9Oacy3q7bLkqHJuijBkz9LZC6EM5BHgUYXhFGVMoTSr-PAFcyhPb2syBA2L8fcrkPBQe8fGoQueNrb8QXK6MgnwpT5WqG5C9IwaQwWhtyzMaiqvZMRWJiNX2eTL5c2i6LTBABAVzhN4cSzpr8p35oESOyDIThBjkxrOsUcG~f4CDIDT5-9bchPvQJhVQs3fo7xT0sqcwSrFAY5Sb5xJvkYrnhx9UkCMRJHDwQTVzFxs~e-KYBeP0qmvWHZ68ro7pbxpLn~Z~04QLSppymMftG2e65qeaBUcMOAzzpyNsiNiW~lKSYtt1p-CmOUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-06-05T04:54:14Z","article","Clayton County State Court entered judgment June 4 for plaintiffs Denise Tuckenberry and Devonte June Taylor after they alleged they lent money to defendant Michael McKinney and received no repayment.

Plaintiff Denise Tuckenberry described loaning funds after reconnecting with an acquaintance she knew from high school and said she provided a total of roughly $65,750 in transfers. She told the court some transfers included amounts tied to her son’s funds and that she had turned over documents showing bank transfers. \"I loaned him $56,000 ... totally, he got, like, $65,750,\" she told the court.

The court found the defendant had been served and had not answered. \"The court is going to grant you, the amount of $73,960. That's $65,700 in principle, ... $537 in court cost,\" the judge said, noting she could not award attorney's fees to an unrepresented plaintiff and would allow prejudgment interest as appropriate. The ruling resolved the liability question by default; the judge advised the plaintiff to consider filing a police report and to consult an attorney to assist with collection.

Judge Hayward cautioned litigants about giving large sums without documentation and urged the plaintiff to obtain counsel for collection, and suggested a police report because the loan may involve fraudulent conduct directed at a vulnerable person.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Clayton State 304's Personal Meeting Room","oneSentenceSummary","Denise Tuckenberry and Devonte Taylor obtained a judgment after alleging they lent roughly $65,700 to Michael McKinney; the judge granted the amount and advised the plaintiff to consider law enforcement and counsel to pursue collection.","taxTitle","Clayton County State Court 304, Texas Courts, Judicial, Texas","taxId",66308,"location","Texas","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6213733,"Judge denies challenge to Ally Financial wage garnishment; federal limits reviewed",390,2578000,2968000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260&start=2578&end=2968","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260/thumbnail_2578000.jpg","/articles/6213733/Texas/Judge-denies-challenge-to-Ally-Financial-wage-garnishment-federal-limits-reviewed","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6213733-fe6d796b4134df148e38ab174bff2057/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156028&Signature=oTf5Xaeamdr41Yr8lPCklE0TBEKhP2qjd3Fd6wrUyrAc9SAZWOV0uXtGp~HlpNTWTTFzBiJ60Pv9dr6eQHS6Yr8L1rEJkvAAerpCsCIZfHSMVRb5llR91QbSDdTKjUV-QivD7~-2PQ7HqQ-H2jpMzmhN9rZCyTkjbLTGMqsitopoPHjIXAlIDILkbeAs5fZv3H~r-zAZNadZvC7iaPTdhlhH~9XP87Urgzdetsv0JZFnnW0FnZIpWoDMZNl-jVov8ZnGkzNitp6Mj5av1mzeXcI7cmbXID6F31iM8gHHmCLFay25wSQc7VhA2oGXBnGCbGrVYOEsxiKxlWqoZigBWA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The court denied a traverse June 4 from Crystal Hudson challenging a wage garnishment filed by Ally Financial.

Michelle Barnes, attorney for Ally Financial, told the court the original judgment was $13,176.69 and the remaining balance was $9,788.05. Hudson said she already had another government garnishment and could not afford a second, but the court reviewed the relevant calculations. The judge explained federal garnishment limits — generally 25% of disposable income or the amount by which disposable income exceeds 30 times the federal minimum wage, whichever is less — and asked counsel to provide employer payroll details.

After reviewing the pay-period gross ($2,422.48 per pay period as listed in the filings) and Hudson’s other deductions, the court found the garnishment did not yet exceed the federal 25% threshold. \"The traverse is denied in this case,\" Judge Tammy Long Hayward said.

The court advised Hudson that, while she faces a hardship, the legal limit had not been shown to be exceeded and suggested she contact the co-borrower to arrange repayment if possible.

","A Clayton County judge denied Crystal Hudson’s traverse of a wage garnishment in favor of Ally Financial, concluding the garnishment did not exceed federal limits after counsel reviewed pay-period information and deductions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6213738,"Court grants default judgment in six-figure investment dispute against Atlanta defendants",589,5566000,6155000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260&start=5566&end=6155","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260/thumbnail_5566000.jpg","/articles/6213738/Texas/Court-grants-default-judgment-in-six-figure-investment-dispute-against-Atlanta-defendants","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6213738-9bc1e82f5c61d58225fd3021dff94aee/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156028&Signature=d3MgjBVLYJxZJMAzLJO883mWBMJDsSaBKGvgFjX3~8Lbs4oxyqUL1gDX9c5QOKnU16QLy90op0zSORJYIlRbxz9wemYRAdPWFaFgV6hFIJhpjGd9GrgPr7Jn8ecTrZwH-bQgEylAX8-jLEQFqU4XMVAbts~MDWwEO6-yNIQechb-tNKLhqHatO7BzHBqPq23s47THTywfPiuttodIeO-e80-TMtHeuYHlld7ETjl27lXBBg--OXSy0P9NkQoy58plRSGCP36nYajTqGo9CIntEUPAfWVfA~wdDqQrSoFLpl8RtA5LCx83aQ33dhIIbjPcn8JACd7KZZ7Qmm7aqXgzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clayton County State Court entered a default judgment June 4 in favor of Ahmed Kamara and Ajatu Jola in an investment dispute against Atlanta Realtors LLC and related defendants.

Plaintiff counsel Jermaine Austin told the court his clients invested $200,000 under a contract that promised $12,000 a month in returns beginning Dec. 1, 2012, and that the defendants paid three months before stopping. Austin asked the court to enter judgment based on the contract and the amounts owed through April of the year the motion was calculated.

The court granted the plaintiff's request. \"So I'm going to go ahead and grant you, based on this contract, $536,000,\" the judge said, announcing the court's computation and directing counsel to submit a proposed order. Austin told the court he expected collection to be challenging and the judge acknowledged the contract was \"as sketchy as the paper it's written on,\" but ruled on the factual record before the court.

The ruling resolves the liability phase by default; the plaintiffs must now pursue collection efforts to recover the judgment amount. The court directed plaintiffs' counsel to submit a proposed order reflecting the judgment and amounts awarded.

","After plaintiffs said they invested $200,000 under an agreement promising monthly returns, Clayton County State Court granted a default judgment in favor of Ahmed Kamara and Ajatu Jola and awarded damages the judge calculated from the contract.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6213743,"Judge strikes answer and schedules damages hearing after discovery failures in dog-bite case",647,4480000,5127000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260&start=4480&end=5127","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260/thumbnail_4480000.jpg","/articles/6213743/Texas/Judge-strikes-answer-and-schedules-damages-hearing-after-discovery-failures-in-dog-bite-case","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6213743-da523645f7f5c99c87394fd1805d4627/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156028&Signature=DoyRAn1hqh8eZ0sf0sgpuFJX06papDx6bTcXgImlUTjdTH9qU-xYjC4wNjplYr1oKXn-rBlcNCCxBxTOtnlHeb6aM4l407uxjXCMadNdGaN6UGxcHPoD9iL~-hldgkCAbJ~MTvtCP0HBbVfnQZqwzowPz7vTujkfQlTeIUX1n3160hbGyvrBuZ72V4m0OqRc7ax0XyKsZWuslSfi2Fx9rZn8UGjpF1nUrEmcy32zNeXDCedeT5qZgMMmH-bUHLJWvXnKQ9AdLKJLdUqbONi3wVBhPqE-FjOBFfXCuxifaZ~r0FIw8WntytkNj17HBCVIYuUsOCtqi1sz6iTbWZ6WxQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clayton County State Court granted a motion on June 4 striking Cedric Hudson’s answer for failure to comply with discovery in a dog-bite case filed by Chauncey.

Josh Samuels, attorney for the plaintiff, told the court the defendant repeatedly failed to respond to written discovery and missed or refused depositions despite an earlier court order to appear. \"It's been pending for almost 3 years now,\" Samuels said, arguing that striking the answer was the only sanction that would cure the plaintiff’s prejudice and allow damages to be proven.

The defendant, Cedric Hudson, appeared pro se and told the court he had believed certain video evidence was in the courthouse file and was unaware of the requirement to provide opposing counsel with a copy. The judge explained the procedural responsibilities that accompany answering a lawsuit and the role of discovery in preparing for trial.

The court found the plaintiff had been prejudiced by the defendant's failures and granted the motion to strike the answer, putting Hudson and the landlord (Property Rental Company) in default. The court declined to award further sanctions such as attorney fees against the pro se defendant but instructed the plaintiff to indicate whether it will proceed to a bench or jury damages hearing. \"If you put yourself at a disadvantage when you don't have an attorney... the part that I guess is most important is I can't treat you any differently than I would treat [an attorney],\" Judge Tammy Long Hayward told Hudson.

The court directed the parties to file an order and scheduled a separate date to conduct the damages hearing so the defendant could attempt to challenge any damages presented. The judge warned Hudson about the 30-day window to challenge orders and urged him to consult rules or counsel if he planned to contest the default.

","In Chauncey v. Hudson, Clayton County State Court granted the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant’s answer for discovery noncompliance, placed the defendant and landlord in default, and set a damages proceeding; the court warned the pro se defendant about discovery obligations and evidence preservation.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6213748,"Judge to decide whether horse counts as \"motor vehicle\" in State Farm uninsured-motorist dispute",1214,607000,1821000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260&start=607&end=1821","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3674606-4daaef395809bad83d954e2f669f5260/thumbnail_607000.jpg","/articles/6213748/Texas/Judge-to-decide-whether-horse-counts-as-motor-vehicle-in-State-Farm-uninsured-motorist-dispute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6213748-6bdeafc98eb05a45d71b6565a313c62e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771156028&Signature=ajUFzUVferTa6O-C~dhvYN79xvQaJZfK0brWERETM~u8baBNC75SlEGfRvqhCb7GcSIhG-T8Q9tBDgVJonu1QVrjxIENr432edW1EbI8eAN0FddJxzbNJ8ctYaeRClu84ZoyihRm7wsy5I508hp9hhk2~BF0dVzf0GoX~WhxvwdNzPTvV~zefx6ecG6RWQFQa~x3-k2gZircynhgaUwFzYqPMHtuLwDWNSiezn9zW~ndhmiSJnhnauMhHoKBQ6Vl~R-VUmw5tMJKjVTv9zx1sRSKnUqFXhBc0rgLDv3BMcLn3lwJo2wNtgn9BVdKNzxe7CVQf1kkI87wAKZtUmGGCA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Clayton County State Court held a hearing June 4 on State Farm’s motion for summary judgment in Jessica Wilson’s claim that her insurer should cover damage after she struck a loose horse.

The central legal question was whether Georgia’s uninsured-motorist statute and related definitions encompass an animal. \"State Farm is moving for summary judgment on the single question ... there is no coverage for this loss under the plaintiff's uninsured motorist coverage,\" said Ryan Brightman, attorney for State Farm. Brightman argued the horse cannot be an uninsured motor vehicle under the statute and cited OCGA definitions and case law to support that position.

Plaintiff’s counsel Abigail Moody told the court that Wilson was driving on a public road when a saddled horse entered traffic, and that the crash caused \"pretty extensive damage\" and \"it's about $63,000 in bills.\" Moody argued there is at least a genuine issue of material fact because the horse had been ridden to a restaurant and tied outside, and therefore \"was being operated on the public roadway\" in a manner that could fall within precedents allowing nontraditional vehicles to be treated as uninsured motor vehicles.

Brightman pointed to statutory language and precedent, saying courts that broaden the definition have still required the object be operated \"like a vehicle\" and that there is no legal requirement to carry liability insurance on horses. He noted policy language that, he said, excludes animals from the contract definitions.

Judge Tammy Long Hayward did not rule at the hearing. \"We will look more carefully at all of these definitions and, give you an order,\" she told counsel at the close of argument. The court will issue a written ruling after reviewing statutory definitions, cited cases, and the policy language presented.

If the court denies State Farm’s motion, the case would proceed on whether the policy or Georgia law requires coverage for this type of loss; if the motion is granted, plaintiff Jessica Wilson would not recover under her uninsured-motorist policy. The court did not set a further hearing date at the June 4 calendar call.

","At a June 4 hearing in Clayton County State Court, State Farm moved for summary judgment arguing Jessica Wilson’s uninsured-motorist claim fails because the object struck was a horse, not a motor vehicle; the court heard extended legal argument and took the matter under advisement.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Court awards judgment after plaintiff says she lent six-figure sum to acquaintance; judge advises police report and counsel for collection

Judge denies challenge to Ally Financial wage garnishment; federal limits reviewed

Court grants default judgment in six-figure investment dispute against Atlanta defendants

Judge strikes answer and schedules damages hearing after discovery failures in dog-bite case

Judge to decide whether horse counts as "motor vehicle" in State Farm uninsured-motorist dispute