Comments on: Domain Names as Property Subject to Creditor Claims – Bosh v. Zavala

By: jorge

jorge — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:03:07 +0000

Paul:

You make a lot of sense.

The whole thing seems weird, but Bosh does come out smelling pretty good.

– Jorge.

By: Domain Names as Property Subject to Creditor Claims – Bosh v … | Arabic names

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:21:53 +0000

[...] concern convergent on internet and profession issues. He blogs. Here is the original: Domain Names as Property Subject to Creditor Claims – Bosh v … Share and [...]

By: Paul Keating

Paul Keating — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:57:11 +0000

Jorge, The issue was not whether Bosh would be a better owner but rather did Zavala have property that could be attached? Bosh could just have easily have taken a car or a piece of real estate for all the court cared. For me it was interesting that the court actually allowed the transfer. As noted in the terrific article above California law only permits a judgment creditor to obtain an order that the property be turned over to the court for sale and the money be used to satisfy the judgment. In the case of an intangible such as a domain, the Code of Civil Procedure requires a 2-step process – 1st to levy and attach the property and 2nd to petition the court for an order that it be sold. I see the Bosh decision as an appropriate result but at the expense of not having followed the law. There is a great post on this at http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/10/the_domain_name_as_collateral.html which deals with the problems of domains as collateral.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:25:39 +0000

Venkat:

Great summary of the issues!

I find the outcome to be completely preposterous, but IANAL.

Here’s an analogy: What if you gave the police a tip that helped catch a thief who had been robbing homes in your neighborhood. Should the judge grant you all the robber’s loot? And should the judge allow you, one of the victims, to be responsible for return the loot to the rightful owners?

It’s just weird to me that the court decided that Bosh would be a better owner for all those athlete’s domains than Zavala was.

By: Venkat

Venkat — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:01:30 +0000

John,

Thanks for the comment. I haven’t done an exhaustive search in Virginia, but I do know that people seem to still cite Umbro. I’ll have to take a look.

Venkat

By: uberVU - social comments

uberVU - social comments — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:26:07 +0000

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by dnnews: Domain Names as Property Subject to Creditor Claims ? Bosh v. Zavala – http://tinyurl.com/yl29zz7...

By: Tweets that mention Domain Names as Property Subject to Creditor Claims – Bosh v. Zavala | Domain Name News -- Topsy.com

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:24:40 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by livedomainer and DomainNews, Susan Karim. Susan Karim said: #DomainNames as #Property Subject to #Creditor #Claims http://bit.ly/4COrGR [...]

By: John Berryhill

John Berryhill — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:22:43 +0000

Thanks for the update in this vexing area.

One thing – it is perfectly normal for courts in different jurisdictions to disagree. I’d be curious to know whether Umbro was the last word on this in Virginia.