AUDITA QUERELA - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

AUDITA QUERELAAuthored

The Law Mind • 1317 words

Definition

Audita querela (Latin: "the complaint having been heard") is a common law writ — and, in modern usage, a procedural mechanism — available to a judgment debtor who seeks relief from a judgment based on matter that arose after the judgment was entered and that could not have been raised as a defense before or during the original proceeding. The classic ground is a post-judgment discharge of the underlying obligation: a release granted by the judgment creditor, payment of the debt, or some other event that makes enforcement of the judgment inequitable. Because the supervening fact arose after judgment, it was unavailable at trial; audita querela supplied the only procedural vehicle to bring it before the court.

The writ operated as the initiating process in a separate action, not as a motion in the original case. The judgment remained intact until the new proceeding resolved the complaint.

In modern practice, the writ as such has been abolished in most jurisdictions — in England by rule, in most American states by adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or their state equivalents. However, federal courts have recognized audita querela as a residual common law remedy available in limited circumstances where no other post-judgment mechanism (such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)) provides adequate relief, particularly for criminal defendants challenging collateral consequences of a conviction.

---

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): "A writ which lies for a party against whom judgment is recovered, but to whom good matter of discharge has subsequently accrued which could not have been availed of to prevent such judgment."

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Identical to the Wiktionary definition, drawn directly from Wharton.

Editorial note: There is no meaningful gap here between common and legal usage — the term is pure legal Latin with no independent life in ordinary English. The Webster's and Wiktionary definitions are themselves sourced from legal dictionaries, not from general usage. The section is noted only to confirm that audita querela carries no misleading colloquial sense. Researchers should be aware that the term's plain-English rendering in these general sources reflects mid-19th century legal usage and does not capture the writ's modern procedural evolution.

---

Common Confusion

Audita querela is frequently confused with coram nobis and coram vobis, the other surviving common law writs aimed at post-judgment relief. The distinction is functional: coram nobis addresses factual errors that existed at the time of judgment but were unknown to the court — the problem was inside the original proceeding. Audita querela addresses matter that did not exist at the time of judgment — the problem arose after. A researcher encountering either writ in historical sources should determine which direction in time the grievance runs before assuming the writs are interchangeable.

Audita querela is also sometimes conflated with a motion to vacate or set aside judgment. The critical structural difference: audita querela was a new, independent action; a motion operates within the original case. This distinction affects which court records and docket entries a researcher will find the proceeding in.

---

Why It Matters in Research

Researchers face three distinct contexts in which audita querela appears, and they require different research strategies.

First, in historical common law sources (pre-1850 English and American), audita querela appears as a live procedural writ with its own pleading forms, return requirements, and bond practice. Burrill and Rapalje are useful starting points, but the full practice is detailed in Bacon's Abridgement and Blackstone's Commentaries (3 Bl. Comm. 405), both of which the historical dictionaries cite. Researchers working in this period should treat the writ as the functional equivalent of today's post-judgment motion, but remember that it generated a separate lawsuit with its own file.

Second, in 19th-century American state practice, the picture is fragmented. Rapalje notes explicitly that the writ survived in some states after England abolished it. Researchers working in state courts of that period should not assume abolition; they should check the state's equity and procedural rules directly. The writ's survival or abolition varied by state and by date of procedural reform.

Third, in modern federal practice, audita querela has experienced a quiet revival in criminal cases. Federal courts have held that where a federal prisoner cannot obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or § 2241, and where Rule 60(b) is unavailable (as it is in criminal cases), audita querela may fill the gap as a common law remedy preserved by the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. § 1651). Researchers in this area should not expect to find the writ discussed in general civil procedure sources; the relevant body of law is in federal criminal post-conviction practice.

A trap in historical sources: early dictionaries define audita querela strictly as a writ for judgment debtors in civil matters. The criminal application is entirely a modern development. Do not use historical dictionary definitions to assess the writ's scope in contemporary federal practice.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

The four source dictionaries show strong agreement on the core definition but reveal an interesting gap in scope.

Black's (both editions) and Burrill agree precisely: audita querela is the initiating process of an action brought by a judgment defendant, based on matter arising after judgment. Burrill adds illustrative specificity — release by the plaintiff, or payment of the debt — that the Black's entries omit. This practical detail is useful for researchers trying to identify whether a historical claim would have supported the writ.

Rapalje & Lawrence is the most historically oriented of the four. It alone notes England's abolition and the writ's partial survival in American states, making it the most useful source for researchers navigating the 19th-century transition period. The Latin gloss Rapalje provides — "the defendant's complaint having been heard" — correctly renders the writ's name as a past participle construction indicating that the court has received and is acting on the complaint.

None of the historical dictionaries addresses the modern federal criminal application. This is an expected gap — the revival in criminal post-conviction practice developed in the late 20th century, well after these sources were compiled. Researchers should treat the historical dictionaries as authoritative for common law and early American practice, but not as a guide to current doctrine.

---

Jurisdictional Note

In England, audita querela was abolished by the Rules of Court and replaced by applications for a stay of execution or other summary relief. In most American states, procedural reform statutes or the adoption of code pleading accomplished the same result, with Rule 60(b)-type motions absorbing most of the writ's function. In federal court, the writ persists as a residual remedy in criminal cases where statutory post-conviction vehicles are unavailable. State criminal practitioners should check whether their jurisdiction has analogous residual common law remedies before assuming federal authorities are transferable.

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

See Law Mind Encyclopedia — Post-Judgment Relief (for modern procedural analogs and Rule 60(b) doctrine)
See Law Mind Encyclopedia — Common Law Writs (for coram nobis, coram vobis, and the broader family of extraordinary writs)

---

AUDITA QUERELAmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

The name of a writ constituting the initial process in an ac- tion brought by a judgment defendant to ob- tain relief againat the consequences of the fense or discharge, arising since its rendition. and which could not be taken advantage of otherwise. See 1 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1003; Bac. Abr. sub voce; 3 Bl. Comm. 405.

AUDITA QUERELAmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1888

- In the old common law practice, a writ given in order to afford a remedy to the defendant in Saund. 439; 3 Bl. Com. 405), "the defendant's complaint having been heard." The proceeding by auditâ querelâ is abolished in England, the present practice being to apply for a stay of execution or other relief against the judgment. (Rules of Court xlii. 22.) It is still retained in some of the States in which the common law practice yet prevails, but generally, the relief is granted upon motion as in England. See 15 Am. Dec. 692, 695, п. AUDIT, (in a statute). 3 Den. (N. Y.) 391. AUDITED, (in a statute). 60 How. (N. Y., Pr. 260. AUDITOR.-LATIN: audire, to hear. (1) A government official upon whom rests the duty to inspect the accounts of disbursing officers, and to audit or examine claims against the government before their payment. (2) An officer (generally more than one) appointed by the court in actions involving accounts, to examine the accounts between the parties, and to ascertain and report the balance. AUDITOR, (defined). 100 Mass. 193. Cranch (U. S.) 8. (appointed by consent of parties). 6 (in State constitution). 51 Wis. 636.

AUDITA QUERELAmain

Burrill's Law Dictionary • 1867

L. Lat. (Having heard the complaint.) In practice. A writ which lies for a defendant against whom judgment is recovered, and who is therefore in danger of execution, or perhaps in execution, whereby he may be relieved, upon showing good matter of discharge, which has happened since the judgment; as if the plaintiff has given him a general release, or if the defendant has paid the debt to the plaintiff, without procuring satisfaction to be entered on the record. In these and the like cases, an audita querela lies in the nature of a bill in equity. It is a writ, directed to the court in which the judgment is recovered, stating that the complaint of the defendant has been heard, (audita querela defendentis,) and after setting out the matter of the complaint, it enjoins the court to call the parties before them, and having heard their allegations and proofs, to cause justice to be done between them. 3 Bl. Com. 405. Reg. Orig. 114, 149. Reg. Jud. Appendix, 14, 15. F. N. B. 102, H. Bac. Abr. Audita querela. Com. Dig. h. t. U. S. Digest, h. t. This writ is now rarely used, the object of it being, in most cases, attainable by motion to the court, founded on affidavit of corporation, who examines periodically the accounts of under officers, tenants, stewards or bailiffs, and reports the state of their accounts to his principal. P. Cyclopædia. The auditors of the exchequer were officers appointed to take the accounts of receivers of the public revenues. Their duties are now performed by a board of commissioners. Brande. In American law. An officer of the treasury of the United States, whose duty is to examine the accounts of officers who have received and disbursed public moneys by lawful authority. Acts of Congress, March 3, 1817, sess. 2, c. 45; February 24, 1819, sess. 2, c. 43. In practice. A person (usually several persons) appointed by the court in actions of account, to take the accounts of the parties. 3 Bl. Com. 163. 1 Story's Eq. Jur. §§ 447, 448. See Account.

AUDITA QUERELAn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

A writ which lies for a party against whom judgment is recovered, but to whom good matter of discharge has subsequently accrued which could not have been availed of to prevent such judgment. Wharton.

audita querelanoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

A writ which lies for a party against whom judgment is recovered, but to whom good matter of discharge has subsequently accrued which could not have been availed of to prevent such judgment.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In