question: what happens if you sue someone for a large amount of money (millions) and you win, but the other person has nowhere near that amount?
comment: First: If you win such a large lawsuit, expect another 7-10 years of appeals before the order to pay is solidified and incontestable. After that, the court can mandate they sell “luxury” items such as vacation homes, high end cars or jewelry etc. with the profits paid to the settlement winner Beyond that its just a debt. In some cases (very few) the state will step in and pay you and later seek repayment from the loser But generally a structured payment plan set up with threat of legal penalties for failing to keep up on payments, with a lien against property if unpaid, garnishments etc
passages: Section::::Career.
   In 2006, the OFHEO announced a suit against Raines in order to recover some or all of the $90 million in payments made to Raines based on the overstated earnings, initially estimated to be $9 billion but have been announced as $6.3 billion.
   On June 26, 2009, Judge Chin ordered Madoff to personally forfeit $170 million in assets, and his wife, Ruth agreed to relinquish her claims to more than $80 million and to retain only $2.5 million. The order allowed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Irving Picard to continue to pursue Ruth Madoff's funds, and on July 29, 2009, Irving Picard sued her for $45 million.
   The agreement capped the total amount of indemnity payments at $50 million, whereas the plaintiff had claimed damages of around $800 million for their estimated 120,000 compulsive gamblers in Québec (this figure has been contested by Loto-Québec).
   On May 1, 2009, Irving Picard filed a lawsuit against Stanley Chais, 82. The complaint alleged Chais "knew or should have known" he was deep in a Ponzi scheme when his family investments with Madoff averaged 40% annual returns on investment and sometimes soared as high as 300%. It also claimed Chais was a primary beneficiary of the scheme for at least 30 years, allowing his family to withdraw more than $1 billion from their accounts since 1995 – money that belonged to Madoff victims. The case number was "Picard v. Chais", 09-01172.
   The judge also commented on the hefty financial cost of the case, remarking that "in my view, the expenditure of $200 million and counting on a single piece of litigation is not only extraordinarily wasteful, but borders on the scandalous". The case has continually been labelled by both the legal and media sectors as one of the most extreme examples of "mega-litigation".
  
  Section::::Litigation.:Costs hearing.
   Where this action is available, however, damages may be claimed under three theories: incurred medical costs or those yet to be incurred by the plaintiff, the loss of the injured spouse's services, and loss of society (within certain parameters).
   In 2011, Supreme Court of the United States ruled against the estate of Anna Nicole Smith, the Playboy Playmate whose marriage to the Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall, 63 years her senior, led to an epic set of lawsuits between Smith and her stepson. The Justices overturned the bankruptcy court award to Smith's estate, that at one point exceeded $400 million. In August, 2014, Federal Judge David O. Carter, in Orange County, ruled Smith's estate would not receive $44 million from her stepson's estate, stating there was "just no evidence before the court that justifies awarding sanctions against Pierce Marshall's estate."
   On March 12, 2014, a Florida jury ruled in favor of Gotta Have It on its breach of contract and other related claims, rejected ETW's counterclaims, and awarded Gotta Have It $668,346 in damages. The award may end up exceeding $1 million once interest has been factored in, though the ruling may be appealed.
   Section::::Controversies and lawsuits.
  
  Section::::Controversies and lawsuits.:Kalpoe lawsuit (2006).
   The legal certainty test is often heavily litigated in personal injury or wrongful death cases, in the situation where they are removed by a defendant to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, and then the plaintiff moves to remand to state court. Since the 1970s, many states have prohibited plaintiffs in such cases from demanding a specific amount of money in the ad damnum section of their complaints, because of serious problems with unscrupulous attorneys gaining undue publicity by simply demanding outrageous and unrealistic damage amounts like $1 trillion. Therefore, many such complaints cannot and do not state an amount in controversy on their face, which puts defendants in the awkward position of having to submit evidence to the federal court that plaintiffs "could" theoretically recover a sum in excess of $75,000, while simultaneously maintaining that plaintiffs are not entitled to anything at all.
   The ruling clears the way for the plaintiff-respondents to collect from the roughly $1.75 billion bank account, which will be enough to satisfy about 70% of their collective $2.5 billion in judgments. They will not be eligible to collect from a $1 billion fund—the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund—established by Congress in 2015 to pay victims of state-sponsored terrorism. That fund pays 30% of judgments until all applicants have received that amount; remaining funds will not be distributed until all claimants have received 30% of their judgment.
  
  Section::::Subsequent developments.:Legal community reactions.
   BULLET::::- Shan v. Harry Lambert: in 2001, won £7.5M for the ex-wife of the newspaper proprietor. Harry Lambert who was represented by Martin Pointer QC. In 2002 after an appeal by Harry, the figure was increased by £2.6m, half Lambert's £20m fortune. Lambert described his ex-wife's contribution to their 23-year marriage as "revolving around children and the microwave," the judge quoted White v White back to him.
   "I'm not telling you Mike Wilson was an egg, but he was like an egg. He was fragile. But he was still useful and marketable. He was able to sell what strength he had in the marketplace of labor.
  
  "But he certainly was not a golf ball, and when the defendant sped through the stop sign and hit Mike Wilson, he did not bounce.
  
  "And fair compensation is to restore the loss that has actually been inflicted on the actual man or woman. Just like when you break an actual egg, fair compensation is paying the actual value."
   In 1995, Steven sued his father over alleged mismanagement of his company, Security Management Corporation, claiming that the elder Posner was paying himself too much money and had wrongly removed Steven as a company director. They settled the suit by flipping a coin over the share of more than $200 million worth of property. Steven was killed in a high-speed boat crash near Miami, Florida on 29 November 2010. Gail died on 19 March 2010 in Miami Beach, Florida.
   In response, the production company's lawyer said, "They're trying to pretend this wasn't already litigated. Cussler has never been able to accept the fact that he lost this case. He didn't accept the jury verdict, then for a year they tried to get the trial court judge to say the jury determined (Cussler was) entitled to $8.5 million and the court said absolutely not. They then sought an appeal and it didn't work. Then they appealed to the California Supreme Court and they didn't take the case. So, despite having had multiple courts say no, they are trying all over again."
   In 2012 he heard the wrongful death civil suit in the case of the crash of a U.S. Marine jet in 2008, which killed four people in a residential area in San Diego. Trying the case without a jury, Miller awarded $7.8 million to the survivors.
   BULLET::::- Karen v. Ray Parlour: won more than £4m in 2004 in a divorce against the settlement former Arsenal F.C. footballer, where it was ruled that Karen's efforts to curb Parlour's addiction to the 'laddish' footballer drinking culture meant she had played an important role in his career. She was awarded a £250,000 lump sum, an annual personal maintenance allowance of £406,500, two tax-free homes, £37,000 maintenance for their three children, and 37.5% of his future earnings.
   Mason also loses a civil case at the beginning of "The Case of the Dead Ringer", partly due to being framed for witness tampering. His staff and he then spend the rest of the episode trying to prove his innocence. They eventually do, and although this is not stated explicitly, the verdict of the civil case is presumably either overturned or declared a mistrial. In a July 15, 2009, interview on National Public Radio's program "All Things Considered", Barbara Hale claimed that all of Mason's lost cases were declared mistrials off the air.
   Proactive was also awarded £90,000 in respect of its full claim against Mrs Rooney / her company (who chose not to attend court and offer any personal defence to the claim brought against her and her company).
  
  Section::::Wayne Rooney.:Contract Negotiations.
   BULLET::::- In 1996, the Supreme Court in "Bennis v. Michigan" upheld the seizure of a vehicle as contraband, despite the owner's use of the innocent owner defense.
  
  BULLET::::- "USA v. $124,700" August 18, 2006 case from the Eighth Circuit Court on civil forfeiture of $124,700
  
  BULLET::::- After the Madoff investment scandal had surfaced, Bernard Madoff was ordered to forfeit $170 billion, although it is believed that he did not have anywhere close to that amount. His wife, Ruth, although not charged, agreed to forfeit about $80 million in assets.
   On September 25, 2012, BuzzerBlog reported that the next couple to play after Gabe and Brittany, Andrew and Patricia Murray, also planned to sue Fox and Endemol because they also had a faulty question, which asked, "According to the data security firm IMPERVA, what's the most common computer password?" The choices were "PASSWORD", "123456", and "ILOVEYOU", placing the $580,000 they had left on "PASSWORD"; however, according to the show, "123456" was the correct answer. In a statement from the Murrays, "IMPERVA did not conduct its own objective survey of computer users but rather supports its assertion that 123456 is the most common password based on analysis of a hacking incident involving a website known as RockYou.com." They also concluded that had the show known that the question was pertaining to one incident, they would've, in the couple's words, "hedged their bets and played differently." They are suing for their prize money of $580,000 because of this.
   In April 2001, the court ordered damages of $65 million be paid to Kremen. Cohen left the United States in 2001 and was living in Tijuana, Mexico, when he was arrested on October 28, 2005. As of 2011 the amount of damages owed to Kremen had increased to $82 million with interest and Cohen to this date, has refused to pay one penny towards the judgment.
   In 2002 Maughan was listed in the Forbes 400 as the 368th-richest man in the world, with a net worth of $600 million.
  
  Section::::Career.:Legal issues.
   After litigation and a civil court ruling, the losing party can appeal against the judgment. At this point, both the plaintiff and defendant could have similar kinds of concerns. An appeal takes time and can be dragged out in some cases for many years. After the case (and any other processes) is finally decided, whichever party wins will perhaps be more "out of pocket" from its costs. Also time will have passed, and the losing party may be bankrupt or have used the time to frustrate any potential future payments in the event of losing.
  