Is there a case to be pursued for a non-domesticated bank account attachment?

Question

I'm going to try and be as brief as possible because I just want to get an idea if there is something to pursue here as a case:

I had old community debts from my marriage in CA; one of those debts was pursued by a collection agency, also in CA. The collection agency knew that I was in NV. An attachment to my bank account was pursued and granted, that levy was served by the Sherrif's department (also in CA). Sheriff served that levy to my nationwide bank; the bank also knew I was in Nevada.

I had my bank account released by a bankruptcy judge in NV. Part of the reason why it was released was because the judgement against my bank account was never domesticated in Nevada.

In short, I had three CA agencies - the collector, the Sherrifs and the nationwide bank - all of whom knew I was in Nevada, all act upon a non-domesticated judgement. The NV constable was never aware of the judgements against me. For all intents & purposes, both the Sheriffs and Chase reached across state lines when they all knew that I was no longer in CA and an established resident in NV.

Can I pursue a case against all three of them for not domesticating the judgement. At some point, doesn't the Sheriff and/or Chase have the responsibility to say "no, we can't act on this across state lines"?

Answer 1

Probably not.

As I read your question you legitimately owe money on a debt proven in California. The proper way for the creditor to recover it in Nevada was by domesticating the judgement (essentially an administrative rather than judicial action) and this didn't happen.

The only person who has suffered damage through this is the court system in Nevada by not being able to collect their fee for domestication. On what basis of damage to you are you proposing to sue?