Harry Seaward

Moderators
  • Content Count

    6,427
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    175

Harry Seaward last won the day on June 4

Harry Seaward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,348 Excellent

About Harry Seaward

  • Rank
    500 posts and hasn't been banned yet....

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Arizona

Recent Profile Visitors

5,649 profile views
  1. Harry Seaward

    Gift tax

    Is mom still living?
  2. It's an OC, so they have you over a barrel. If you're happy with the settlement terms, you should probably take the deal. I would probably hold off on sending payment until you have a copy of the agreement signed by the plaintiff/attorney.
  3. It's hard to tell exactly from what you posted, but it looks like Plaintiff never filed proof of service, so the court set an order to show cause hearing to ask why they never filed their proof of service. Plaintiff apparently realized they made some sort of error (never served you, or the proof was lost, etc) and moved the court to dismiss instead of showing up to explain what happened. Because they moved for dismissal without prejudice, they can (and probably will) just start over and file a new case against you.
  4. Was there a stipulation agreement? Generally, voluntarily DWP doesn't mean they can't still try to collect - only that they can't sue. It's effectively the same thing as a debt where the SOL has expired. The debt is still owed; they just can't sue you to collect it.
  5. What was the context of the letter? Were they saying that is their policy with regard to any case that goes to arbitration?
  6. I had nothing to say until you acted like you were the victim.
  7. I would file a motion for an extension of time to file a response. The mail is all screwed up right now with the COVID nonsense.
  8. I don't. 3 different MTDs with two different dispositions filed in less than a month (two different dispositions in the same week, in fact) doesn't seem like a lawfirm that has a handle on the case strategy. You know as well as I do that the attorneys with 10+ years of experience don't go anywhere near these filings. Best case is some second year affiliate, but most likely it's drafted by some law student intern. There was an Indiana case here a couple years ago (I think it was Unifund suing). It ended up in arbitration and the attorney handling that case went completely rogue. I'm not comparing the details of case to that one, but merely using that as an example for how things start out a little sideways and end up on a completely different track headed in the opposite direction at double speed. The best AI can't stop someone that thinks they know better.
  9. This seems painfully clear that the lawfirm handling the case is completely unorganized, and has no idea what they are filing and sending to whom and when. That or you share the same name with another debtor they are currently suing and they are mixing the two cases up in their office. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've heard of it happening.
  10. They filed a MTD with prejudice and sent an offer for stipulated dismissal without prejudice. I know these may seem like the same thing, but they are pretty different from each other in two distinct ways. So much so that it makes more sense for it to be a case of mixing up two different cases (or even left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing) vs. intentionally trying to pull a fast one.
  11. That seems pretty clear to me that they filed the MTD by mistake, or at least realized after the fact that they should have left the court case open, which would likely (and frankly, should) be forgiven as a mistake.
  12. OK, because the only actual "effort" to dismiss was a MTD. The letters and MTD could be explained as follows. If you go back and read this thread (disregarding OPs unsupported interpretation of filings), mistakenly filing a MTD thinking this was a different case than the one in arbitration makes everything else fit perfectly into place. So for the 4th time, I'd like to see the filings before making any assumptions about how this case should be dealt with
  13. What efforts would those be? And "efforts" implies intentionality, so mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect wouldn't apply. (Why are we bolding every other statement?)