BV80

Moderators
  • Posts

    20,298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    309

BV80 last won the day on July 29

BV80 had the most liked content!

About BV80

Profile Fields

  • Location
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

9,277 profile views

BV80's Achievements

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

500 posts and hasn't been banned yet.... (6/6)

2.9k

Reputation

  1. What do you mean that you responded to “judgment”? What exactly did you receive from Malen?
  2. Please check the dates of the threads to which you are responding. You’re responding to old threads.
  3. For us to better help you, start your own thread. Copy and answer the questions in the following thread. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/242744-qs-to-answer-when-posting-in-this-forum-please-read/
  4. That’s why he needs to speak to an attorney. The purpose of the amended rule is to encourage settlement and reduce litigation. It might be considered unfair for opposing parties to force admission of liability in order to end negotiation efforts and use that admission in court. What would be the purpose of settlement talks if the plaintiff could demand an admission of liability as a requirement to discuss a settlement, then reject any offer, and use the statement in court? Admitting to the debt after offering to settle might be a statement made during negotiations. According to the first sentence, statements made during negotiations cannot be used to prove the validity or amount of a disputed claim. Disputing the claims would be necessary to trigger the exclusions in that rule. Perhaps, depending on when a negotiation is determined to begin, the attorney’s refusal to talk about settlement unless the OP admits liability could be considered a refusal to negotiate or, at least, hindering a negotiation attempt. As previously advised, a consultation with an attorney is needed. I might also ask the attorney how VA courts define “settlement negotiation” and what constitutes the start of that negotiation.
  5. Unfortunately, I can’t locate any VA rulings to give us guidance. The relevant VA rule which I cited in a previous post is a 2016 amendment that mirrors the federal rule. The rule previously read Rule 2:408 COMPROMISE AND OFFERS TO COMPROMISE Evidence of offers and responses concerning settlement or compromise of any claim which is disputed as to liability or amount is inadmissible regarding such issues. However, an express admission of liability, or an admission concerning an independent fact pertinent to a question in issue, is admissible even if made during settlement negotiations. Otherwise admissible evidence is not excludable merely because it was presented in the course of compromise negotiations. Nor is it required that evidence of settlement or compromise negotiations be excluded if the evidence is offered for another purpose, such as proving bias or prejudice of a witness or negating a contention of undue delay. Note that the highlighted section is not included in the current amended rule. It definitely will be interesting to find out what an attorney has to say.
  6. Based on the rule, they should not be admissible under most circumstances, but you are wise to want to speak to an attorney.
  7. The reason I asked about small claims is because it appears the rules of evidence might be suspended for small claims court. However, based upon your rules, I would think that you are not in small claims. http://www.courts.state.va.us/resources/small_claims_court_procedures.pdf
  8. Are you in small claims? If not, you should speak to a consumer attorney and ask that question. Also ask if offers made over the phone are considered to be settlement negotiations. Here is VA Rule of Evidence 2:408. Rule 2:408 - COMPROMISE OFFERS AND CONDUCT OR STATEMENTS DURING NEGOTIATIONS (a)Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party in a civil case - either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim, or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or by contradiction: (1) furnishing, promising, or offering - or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept - a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim; and (2) conduct or any statements made during compromise negotiations about the claim. (b)Exceptions. The court may admit such evidence for another purpose, such as proving a witness's bias or prejudice or negating a contention of undue delay. (c)Pre-existing documents or physical evidence. Otherwise admissible evidence that existed prior to the commencement of compromise negotiations, including pre-existing documents or electronic communications, is not excludable under this Rule merely because such evidence was disclosed, produced, or discussed by a party during such negotiations.
  9. That is not true. Settlement negotiations are not admissible in court. The mediator simply informs the court if a settlement is reached, not reached, or that a party acted in bad faith. A $1 offer may just fit the bill as bad faith. Stop offering your opinions. Either read the applicable rules for a particular state or stay out of it.
  10. Check out this thread. https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/329953-person-most-knowledgable-response-to-ccp-96-in-ca/ Here’s one of the responses: Dear_[JDB]__ Defendant have received Plaintiff's response to the request to identify witnesses and evidence pursuant to CCP section 96. In response, Plaintiff has stated that it intends to call "The Person Most Knowledgeable for [JDB]". This response is insufficient under the Code. As CCP 96 specifically states, a responding party must give " the names and addresses of witnesses (OTHER THAN A PARTY WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL) you intend to call at trial". Plaintiff's response does not identify any witness by name much less give an address. Please be advised that Defendant intends to object to any witness that Plaintiff attempts to call at trial. Here’s another thread: https://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/325123-out-of-time-in-california-too-late-to-win-my-case-ccp-96-ccp-98-need-help-immediately-please/page/2/
  11. It most certainly is relevant when you are giving incorrect information for courts about which you know nothing. I suggest you allow the seasoned member who does understand TX rules and law regarding debt cases to advise TX consumers. Please refrain from continuing to post in this thread. I will not warn you again.
  12. The OP is in Justice Court which does not require affirmative defenses in a general denial. Rule 502.5 (b) General Denial. An answer that denies all of the plaintiff’s allegations without specifying the reasons is sufficient to constitute an answer or appearance and does not bar the defendant from raising any defense at trial. @texasrockeris from TX and has helped many TX consumers on this site to win lawsuits. He is far from ignorant.
  13. The county court in which the lawsuit was filed probably has an answer form online that you can print out and fill out. Search posts by @texasrockerfor defenses such as “lack of standing”, etc. and other directions. You need to keep one copy for yourself, file one with the court, and send one to the attorney for the plaintiff.