• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About graym

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location
  1. To simplify the whole thing, they filed an Affidavit with the Court (without serving her) in which they stated the debt was for $4,044.81 + Court costs of $295, attorney's fees of $450, and prejudgment interest of $1590.90. Afterwards, they obtained a stipulation agreement which hides all of this, and simply states the actual debt is $6278.60, including costs. She made one payment of $200, and then they filed a 2nd affidavit stating the debt was $6,078.60 + fees + pre-judgment interest from the date of the Stipulation. Based on the 2nd affidavit, the court issued Final Judgment verbatim f
  2. This is an interesting case in just how far you can go to overturn a Void Judgment. In this case, they lost, but afterwards, without notice, the Plaintiff proposed an amended judgment without serving the Defendants. The court entered the amended judgment after only 1 day's notice to the Defendants. The Defendants appealed that amended Judgment issued without due process and lost. The Defendants sought Petition and lost. They then initiated a new case collaterally attacking the Judgment w
  3. Everything you said about Rooker-Feldman is true, but many courts also apply a fraud exception to the doctrine and she is asserting fraud. I don't know what she is going to do, she's contemplating it and wants a break from this legal crap. They falsified her driver's license, I can't see how that's not an FDCPA violation. You're misunderstanding the facts as well. The only argument that was raised and litigated in the courts so far was the issue of venue and service in the original case. Her letter to the court, which she sent trying to stop the garnishment, simply stated she didn't live t
  4. That's correct, she did not live where they filed suit and it is about 400 miles away from where the case was. All documents in the case show she lived 400 miles away, and service was effectuated 400 miles away. FDCPA statute is past on that claim, but they did the same thing with the Garnishment action filed in 2013. It's relatively bullshit to have to defend a case on the opposite side of the state. It literally makes no sense, at least to me, not to file the suit and list all potential FDCPA violations while simply falling back on a violation of the venue provision of the FDCPA which i
  5. I would fundamentally disagree with that assessment. Just because a state court ruled in their favor doesn't mean they didn't violate the FDCPA. They aren't even the same issues. Also, my dad not wanting to help had absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case itself. It was overwhelmingly location and a small portion because he just considers it small potatoes and doesn't want to spend time on it. That right there is the entire reason people have a right to be sued in a proper venue. It's extremely difficult to defend a suit hundreds of miles away from where you live. It's an
  6. In my personal opinion, her best action is to file an FDCPA suit. Certain claims are definitely within the statute of limitations, such as misrepresentations they made in the Appellate Brief. She has 2 months to file on those claims and still be within the 1 year. The other things like venue and the document not being served can be raised as well. There is not a whole lot of case law on some issues in her case. For example, there is case law that establishes that the statute of limitations runs from the date of service, and not the date of filing, when a suit itself is an FDCPA violation
  7. They submitted a copy of her driver's license with an address listed on it that she has never lived at. It's the erroneous address they used to justify venue on the opposite side of Florida. It's easy to prove it is falsified, you just provide the actual DMV records with the correct address. As far as the Affidavit goes, the first copy was faxed in to the court and the 2nd copy was mailed in which arrived the same day as the Stipulation Agreement. As far as them "showing her" a copy of it, it's a losing argument. The entire way you prove that you served a copy on the opposing party is by p
  8. Well that's the thing, I would logically state the date of the violation was the date it was mailed to the court back in 2008. If that's the case, and they intentionally withheld the documentation even though they were required to serve her a copy, I'd assume the doctrine of equitable estoppel would apply as that's the entire reason it is there. Venue is definitely past Statute of Limitations based on the filing date of the case, but in their Appellate Brief they filed documents defending their choice of venue by introducing new falsified evidence to support it. That would likely be a new
  9. Well, I would agree with that ruling. If a person pays a Judgment, they obviously are aware of the case and therefore due diligence would extend to finding out whether or not a satisfaction of Judgment was filed. They applied a continuing violation theory to a single cause of inaction - the failure to file a satisfaction of judgment. The main thing to take away from that case is specifically that inaction can't support a theory of continuing violations. However, the part you cited: "The limitations period begins to run on an FDCPA claim on the date of an alleged violation, not on the dat
  10. Clydesmom, I've posted the documents, and cited the caselaw and rules of procedure. Regardless of any Stipulation Agreement being signed, the Affidavit was required to be served on her. The Rules of Procedure clearly state that and you've offered nothing that would indicate that fact is untrue. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so, especially when your posts are in direct conflict with the relevant caselaw and Rules of Procedure on this matter. In her case, the Affidavit was filed AFTER the original claim was filed and served. It was not included in the original claim which is o
  11. Technically yes, but she was not aware that she was in court. It's a very small town and the courthouse is a business building, not an actual courthouse. She met with them in a conference room, not in a court room, and she was never in front of a judge. It occurred at a pre-trial hearing. She was never served, and never saw the service. She never received a single paper in the case, nor before the case because the Debt Collector had sent all correspondence to an erroneous address that she never received. She did not receive any notification of any kind as to what debt this was as she h
  12. First off, the document was not part of the summons. She ordered the entire case. It also clearly was not part of the summons based on the fact it is signed and dated after service of the summons. Secondly, and much more importantly, this is the exact reason why courts not only require you to serve documents on the opposing party, but to list on the documents how you served them. It is the responsibility of the filing party to inform the court that they served a copy on the opposing party. The fact that the document does not even contain a certificate of service is proof that she did not
  13. They calculated interest starting on the date the debt occurred well before the date which they purchased the debt. I'm pretty sure that's not correct. A quick google search about it brought this up: It's the exact same thing they did in her case. She just learned of this recently because the only document which shows they did this was never served on her so she never found out until she ordered a copy of the case 4 months ago. Why would anyone be
  14. Here are the documents so everyone can see what I'm referring to. The first document is the Affidavit of Amounts due. They sent it in by fax, and mailed a copy in. Neither of which contain any certificate of service. She never saw this document, it was never served. The first time she saw this document was when she ordered a copy of the case in preparation of her Petition in the District Court. She did not have it available when she sent in her letter/motion so she has never raised any of these issues. Look at the breakdown of the debt listed. The 2nd document is the "stipulation". N
  15. It's not a small thing to have a garnishment dissolved after the money has been wrongly paid out. Yes, it might be a "technicality" as you put it, but notice of the proceedings is a rather important technicality.