Civil courts are where legal disputes not involving criminal action are settled. Regardless of the dispute at hand, courts tend to take a step back after a judgment is rendered. They only get involved in enforcement on a limited basis. Have you ever wondered why that is?

For the record, judgment enforcement is essentially implementing whatever decision the court has handed down. For simplicity’s sake, we will use a monetary award as an example. Imagine a landlord who has won a civil lawsuit to evict a renter who has not paid. In addition to eviction, the landlord is entitled to a monetary award consisting of back rent, legal fees, and interest.

Enforcement of that judgment boils down to collecting the monetary award. Collection is left to the landlord and his representatives. He may turn collection over to his attorney or hire a specialized collection agency like Salt Lake City’s Judgment Collectors. But unless he needs something like a writ of execution or supplemental hearing, he and his representatives are on their own. The court will not get involved.

Separation of Powers

There are many reasons courts limit their intervention in enforcement proceedings. At the top of the list is the separation of powers doctrine. We have three branches of government: legislative, judicial, and administrative. Enforcing judgments is considered an administrative function. Therefore, the separation of powers doctrine dictates that enforcement be carried out by an entity separate and distinct from the court.

In our fictional landlord case, the court does not forcibly compel the evicted renter to pay. Rather, the court recognizes the legitimacy of the debt, thus giving the landlord access to legal tools for collecting.

Lack of Jurisdiction

Hand-in-hand with separation of powers are jurisdictional issues. States purposely limit court jurisdiction to prevent the judicial branch from assuming too much power.

Another way to say it is this: courts do not have the legal authority to intervene in enforcement except on a limited basis. A court has the authority to issue a writ of execution to seize and sell property on behalf of the landlord. But the court cannot enforce that order. Instead, the landlord enforces it with the help of the local sheriff.

The sheriff’s department has the legal authority to seize the property and sell it. Doing so as part of the sheriff’s jurisdiction. On the other hand, the sheriff does not have the legal right to issue a writ of execution. That right belongs to the court.

The Need for Impartiality

Courts must maintain impartiality in all matters. In order to do so, all of their decisions and actions must be made based on the law and the facts of a case. Stepping in to enforce judgments would go beyond their mandate. It would result in courts favoring one party over another – or at least the perception of doing so. This would clearly inhibit impartiality.

A Lack of Resources

Underscoring all of this is the simple fact that courts do not have the resources to get involved in enforcement. That is by design. Their main purpose is to adjudicate the law, not enforce it. Therefore, states and counties do not provide resources above what is necessary to adjudicate.

It could be frustrating to our fictional landlord to get so little enforcement help from the court. But that’s the way our system is designed. We never want any branch of government to have too much power. Therefore, separation of powers keeps each branch in check. But that means citizens need to step up and do their part. It is how we maintain law and order.