next life

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About next life

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    MN
  1. Ugh. JDB was able to get the dismissal reversed and the judge to admit they dismissed for wrong venue in error. My understanding is that it stands as if it had not been dismissed. I've now received a motion for summary judgement. They attached some documents such as my original note with WF, however the docs that show the JDB that is being represented isn't real clear on if they specifically bought the debt or not. I contacted a defense attorney who said there is some possibility this can be fought and I win based on if they truly own the debt or not. More realistically he said I may want to try to settle. It's 25k at stake. Here's the big decision I need to make within the day. I can retain the attorney at a flat $2500 to fight for me and /or potentially negotiate. He has to file a motion to delay within the next day. If granted gives a bit of time to do his discovery. If not, court date is 10-21. If I pay him to represent and then we negotiate in the long run it might be less than the $25 k, but I have to wonder if I can negotiate with the JDB on my own and have less out of pocket all around. Suggestions? Pay the attorney and take my chances we can delay and possibly win or try to negotiate on my own. If I don't have the attorney I really don't think I have the knowledge to fight correctly in court. Help.
  2. A new twist - I received my paperwork from the court today that showed the case was dismissed 'DUE TO WRONG VENUE'. Judge said neither I nor JDB was a resident of the county. HOWEVER, I AM a resident of said county. So, I would think the JDB would re-file, however the date I was originally served was 4-9-14 and the date they had filed at my county was 4-6-15. There were 3 days short of SOL expiring on the paperwork of when the initially served me. Questions - 1) Can they refile with the same county and point out that I AM a resident, thereby overriding the judge's dismissal? 2) If they can refile, can it go back to the original filing date of 4-6-15 since the judge was actually in error on the residency issue? 3) If they can refile and judge allows the 4-6-15 date and in essence, not hitting the SOL, can I still countersue for SOL for this or the original debt? Any insight is greatly appreciated!!!
  3. Sweet! If they do file again, is there a limit to how long they have to wait or how long they CAN wait? In other words, when can I feel this is finally completely behind me?
  4. I'm a bit dumb-founded.... If dismissed without prejudice, I assume they can still try to bring suit again. However, SOL just expired so perhaps I can truly do a happy dance???
  5. I need help understanding what I see online at pa.courts.state.mn.us.Does this mean the case has been dismissed and I'm done with this ordeal?? Any insight is greatly appreciated!! ----- Briefly summary: 4-9-14 - was severed pocket docket, from then went through phases of discovery, etc. until December 1-13-15 - sent Response to Interrogatories, Response for Product of Documents and Response for Admissions to JDB 4-6-15 - JBD mailed copy of their filing with County court mailed, proposed trial date of 3-28-16. 4-8-15 - I received copy of filing, just looked it up online at pa.courts.state.mn.us and here's what it shows: DISPOSITIONS 4-8-15 Dismissal without prejudice OTHER EVENTS AND HEARINGS 4-6-15 Case Filed 4-6-15 Certificate of Representation 4-6-15 Civil Cover Sheet 4-6-15 Summons and Complaint 4-6-15 Affidavit of Service 4-6-15 Affidavit of Service 4-6-15 Schedule Court Trial 4-7-15 Notice of Case Assignment 4-7-15 Order for Dismissal 4-8-15 Notice of Entry of Judgment 4-8-15 Judgment
  6. As far as I know, nothing has been filed in the courts. It's pocket docket only. If something is filed with my county, don't I need to be informed? If that doesn't matter, how could a person plead SOL at discovery or to have it dismissed? What should I expect as their next move, if any?
  7. Update: I've not heard a word from GC since the last letter in mid-July that said they didn't accept my discovery. I've also not contacted them. Now what? A couple of questions: 1 - The SOL on the debt has either passed or coming up soon. This was a an auto loan that was written off with WF and then sold, resold to JDB. Is the SOL on the anniversary of the last payment I made to WF, when they write it off, when it gets sold? 2 - Being I haven't heard a word for over 2 months, now what? What should I do or what should I expect? Any input would help!
  8. Could I ask for your input on this @shellieh98 ? I've read quite a bit of your posts and you seem to explain this stuff pretty well. I would greatly appreciate any help from others, too!
  9. I received a reply from Gustel and not sure what it means or how to handle. Below is the entire Discovery Plan they sent. I sent it back with my edits that are in cross outs and italics. Here is a summary of their reply: "We are in receipt of your revised Discovery Plan, please be advised Plaintiff objects and does not agree with amendments as stated. You may file a separate discovery plan with the court if you desire. If you have any questions, please call us. This communication is from a debt collector and is an attempt to collect a debt, Any information willl be used for that purpose." I haven't the foggiest on what to do next or what this even means. Help! --- Pursuant to Rule 26.06© of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties submit the following revised Discovery Plan: (1) Plaintiff and defendant (via attachment) will provide its 26.01(a) Required Disclosures on or before June 27, 2014. Plaintiff proposes Defendant provide his/her 26.01(a) Required Disclosures as soon as possible. Plaintiff and Defendant will respond to the discovery requests by July 27, 2014. (2) Discovery will be needed on any denial, dispute, or defense claimed or asserted by Defendant. Plaintiff will provide Discovery materials for each assertion in the complaint that the defendant did not agree to in the Answer. Plaintiff will also provide Discovery that will be used to prove the debt if valid under Minnesota law. Discovery should not be conducted in phases, but should be limited to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Answer. (3) Any of Plaintiff’s electronically stored information can be reproduced in hardcopy format. (4) Parties may claim privilege of or protection of trial-preparation materials at the time of production. If a party disagrees with a designation, the disagreeing party must object to the designation within fourteen days of receiving the document. If the parties are unable to resolve a designation dispute, the parties may petition the court of a determination. (5) No changes should be made to the limitation on discovery imposed under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules. Plaintiff does not propose any other limitations. (6) The court need not issue any other order under Rules 26.03, 16.02 and 16.03 at this time. Pursuant to Rule 26.06© of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties submit the following revised Discovery Plan: (1) Plaintiff and defendant (via attachment) will provide its 26.01(a) Required Disclosures on or before June 27, 2014. Plaintiff proposes Defendant provide his/her 26.01(a) Required Disclosures as soon as possible. Plaintiff and Defendant will respond to the discovery requests by July 27, 2014. (2) Discovery will be needed on any denial, dispute, or defense claimed or asserted by Defendant. Plaintiff will provide Discovery materials for each assertion in the complaint that the defendant did not agree to in the Answer. Plaintiff will also provide Discovery that will be used to prove the debt if valid under Minnesota law. Discovery should not be conducted in phases, but should be limited to the issues raised in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Defendant’s Answer. (3) Any of Plaintiff’s electronically stored information can be reproduced in hardcopy format. (4) Parties may claim privilege of or protection of trial-preparation materials at the time of production. If a party disagrees with a designation, the disagreeing party must object to the designation within fourteen days of receiving the document. If the parties are unable to resolve a designation dispute, the parties may petition the court of a determination. (5) No changes should be made to the limitation on discovery imposed under the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules. Plaintiff does not propose any other limitations. (6) The court need not issue any other order under Rules 26.03, 16.02 and 16.03 at this time.
  10. WhoCares1000 - Thanks for the quick response. Perhaps you can help clarify a bit on these questions -Since their original Discovery Plan stated: "(1) Plaintiff will provide its 26.01(a) Required Disclosures on or before June 27, 2014" and my request was received by them on that day, if they had intended to send Required Disclosures by that date wouldn't those have already been sent? As in, their maill and my mail passed through at the same time? -So far, I haven't received any DV whatsoever and am assuming they are the 97% JDB that don't have anything. Not sure if you've dealt with them in the past but what is the likelihood they will send anything? -I thought I read with a Pocket Docket that I can still try to get this dismissed even if they don't file at the courts. If they don't file and I don't hear from them, what should I expect to have happen? The SOL should be running out in a few months. Any insight or advice on next steps, if I need an attorney, etc. is greatly appreciated!
  11. I need some help on next steps in Discovery phase of lawsuit. Here's a snapshot of where things are at: April 2014: Via Pocket Docket in Minnesota, was served by Gurstel Chargo, representing Autovest as JDB for Wells Fargo Financial on Consumer Debt. With interest it's around 25k. I responded within the 20 days required, basically said insufficient information to be able to admit or deny claims. Asked for plaintiff to prove claim. Requested lawsuit be dismissed, etc. May 2014: Gurstel sends robo letter to discuss discovery plan, gives settlement offer. Discovery plan states they will provide Required Disclosures on or before June 27, 2014 and proposes I do the same as soon as possible. I respond via certified mail by June 27 that basically I no longer have any documents. With regards to the Discovery Plan, I sent a revised plan that read: (1) Plaintiff and defendant (via attachment) will provide its 26.01(a) Required Disclosures on or before June 27, 2014. Plaintiff proposes Defendant provide his/her 26.01(a) Required Disclosures as soon as possible. Plaintiff and Defendant will respond to the discovery requests by July 27, 2014. So now it is July 9 and I haven't received anything from Gurstel. No discovery documents. Nothing. The SOL should be running out within a few months however I haven't been able to get the exact date verified from Wells Fargo. Here's my question: They never sent any type of Discovery so can't I get this officially dismissed? If so, how? What are my next steps? Help!