Can a person be found not guilty by reason of insanity in a Civil Case?

Especially in a tort case and not have to pay. Or even better yet, a debtor who owns the bank money. The debtors purchase with the money and appearance in court evident insanity. Could he/she be found not guilty of the charge and not have to pay?Can a person be found not guilty by reason of insanity in a Civil Case?
Well, you are not exactly asking the question as it should be asked, but I think I understand it. Say for instance, a person wants to borrow money from a bank and applies for a loan, the bank checks his credit and it tuns out it is okay and the bank extends him a line of credit of $50,000. The debtor spends the $50,000 for fun things and within a month all the money is gone and he never makes a payment.





Bank sues the debtor in civil court to recoup its losses. Debtor shows up a with a medical certificate, having previously been determined an incompetent (having no legal capacity to contract) because of his mental condition (insanity).





A prerequisite to any contract is the capacity to contract, minors with certain exceptions (when they are dealing with necessity (food)) lack legal capacity to contract, so do certified mental incompetents. Therefore, if this person was indeed a certified incompetent the contract would not be enforceable against him personally, but they may sue his or her conservator to get to his funds, if he has any. This is the type of question the State Bar may ask.





It is a very thoughtful question, but you should note that in civil law, there is no such thing as guilty or not guilty, we say you are liable (responsible) or not liable for the damages. Also, having been declared (judged) mentally incompetent would show up on credit reports, so no chance of fooling the banks there.Can a person be found not guilty by reason of insanity in a Civil Case?
A person is NOT found guilty OR not guilty in a civil case. They are found LIABLE or not liable. Insanity is NOT a defense in civil cases. On the other hand, it is possible to be 'judgment proof'. That essentially means you have NO assets or income that can be taken to satisfy the judgment.





Edit: The self proclaimed lawyer has convinced me he IS a lawyer. He over analyzed the question beyond all meaning.
I am not a lawyer... but I think not. Defendants using the insanity defense have to prove they were incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. I've only seen it used in criminal cases.
What are you? Nuts?
';Not Guilty'; applies to criminal cases only. So no, you can not be found ';not guilty'; in a civil case.





In a civil case - you are found liable or not liable. The standard in a civil case is a ';preponderance of the evidence'; not ';beyond a reasonable doubt'; like in criminal court. As such, the standard is lower in civil court than in criminal court. That's why OJ was found ';not guilty'; in the criminal proceeding but the Goldmans/Browns were awarded a very large economic judgment in the civil case against Simpson.