Judgment creditors sought leave under Rule 60.18(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine a director of the judgment debtor in aid of execution following default on a settlement judgment.
Prior to the examination, the creditors commenced a separate action alleging fraudulent conveyances, bulk sales violations, and oppressive conduct relating to transfers of the debtor’s assets.
The court held that once the new action covering the same subject matter had been commenced, the purpose of an examination in aid of execution was exhausted because the creditor’s rights were merged into the action.
Allowing the examination would create an unfair multiplicity of proceedings and effectively permit duplicate discovery.
The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendant.
