So it sounds like you won a default judgement because you sued him in your state and he did not travel to defend. You then had the default judgement transferred. Why didnt you seek to garnish wages? I am curious.
It also sounds like you sued him for your expenses as a result of the deal collapsing. Is that correct? The other party claims you misrepresented your item in trade. That probably did not come up because he did not travel to defend.
I have read that its not uncommon for a party (plaintiff) to sue another party (defendant) in the plantiff's home state and count on the defendant not traveling to defend and thus win a default judgement. It was my understanding that you had to sue the defendant in their home state for just this reason-However for a corporation of course you can sue them in any state that they do business in.
With regard to the Internet, there is some state law that suggests that by advertising on the internet and because you reach every state you are able to be sued in any state, similar to a corporation. I have read that Michigan has that state law and perhaps Florida does as well.
If the the party who was sued were to check state law in FL and their home state they could probably file to overturn the default judgement.
It would seem this was a his word versus his word scenario, and both parties were not 100% in agreement on the trade. Why didnt you just offer to split the travel cost given you both werent 100% satisfied?
Honestly, if I were the defendant I would probably sue you in my home state for misrepresenting the vehicle for the exact same amount, require you to defend, and if you didnt, transfer the judgement to Florida. Quid Pro Quo.
Just my two cents and based on a few law courses and a lot of Internet research.
Later, Scorp