buddyapple

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About buddyapple

  • Rank
    CIC Member

Profile Fields

  • Location
    Michigan
  1. Hi all, Here's what I have so far. Let me know your input and suggestions!! Best, ba DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR FIRST ADJOURNMENT OF NON-JURY TRIAL NOW COMES the Defendant, , by way through self representation, who hereby responds to the Plaintiff's Motion for First Adjournment of Non-Jury Trial, and states to this Honorable Court as follows: STATEMENT OF FACTS The Plaintiff has filed a Motion for First Adjournment of Non-Jury Trial with the court. This motion was prepared on July 18, 2013, and presented to the court by way of a fax transmittal on July 24, 2013. A copy of this motion was overnighted to Defendant's residence on July 24, 2013, and delivered on July 25, 2013. 1) Neither party had previously requested an adjournment prior to the Plaintiff's current motion filed with the Court. 2) The Plaintiff has requested granting of this motion due to a pre-paid vacation scheduled by one of the four attorneys assigned to this case, and that during this pre-paid vacation this particular attorney, , will be out of the country. 3) The Plaintiff claims that they will be unduly prejudiced if the trial commenced with only the three remaining attorneys assigned to this case. Those three remaining attorneys being The Defendant respectfully disagrees with the Plaintiff's claims. The Defendant believes that the three other attorneys assigned to this case would be more than capable of handling the half-day Non-Jury trial that has been scheduled since April 29, 2013, and if there had been a genuine issue regarding any scheduling conflicts, those matters should have been brought to the attention of the Court and the Defendant at any of the prior appearances made before the Court, or by filing of a motion in a more timely manner which would give the Defendant sufficient time to respond with an opposition before the hearing date. Wherefore, Defendant asks this Honorable Court to dismiss the entire motion presented, and asks this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff’s entire case with prejudice. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ______________________ _____________________________ Defendant, Pro Se BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S OPPOSITION TO FIRST ADJOURNMENT OF NON_JURY TRIAL INTRODUCTION The Plaintiff has filed a Motion for First Adjournment of Non-Jury Trial with the court. This motion was prepared on July 18, 2013, and presented to the court by way of a fax transmittal on July 24, 2013. A copy of this motion was overnighted to Defendant's residence on July 24, 2013, and delivered on July 25, 2013. The Plaintiff fails to meet the proper criteria required by the Court to grant this Motion based on the following: ARGUMENT The Plaintiff states in their Motion that they are requesting a granting of this motion due to a pre-paid vacation scheduled by one of the four attorneys assigned to this case, and that during this pre-paid vacation this particular attorney,, will be out of the country. The trial date for this case was set on April 29, 2013. This gave the attorney more than ample time to bring any scheduling conflicts to the Court's attention. It is highly unlikely this attorney only became aware of his pre-paid August vacation on July 18, 2013. The Defendant has made all the provisions necessary and proper arrangements in order to be available for trial on August 5, 2013. It seems illogical that the Plaintiff's counsel would not have done the same, although with four attorneys assigned, it seems they have made provisions for someone to be available for trial on the date set April 29, 2013. What the Plaintiff has failed to state in their Motion is that there are three other attorneys assigned to this case. On each and every document filed by the Plaintiff, until this particular document was filed asking this Honorable Court to basically delay the trial, the Plaintiff has listed four attorneys for this case, listed in the same order each and every time: . The fact that there are three other attorneys, in addition to, assigned to this case, the Defendant believes that granting an Adjournment in this matter is not appropriate, as it would seem logical that at least one of them would be more than capable of handling a half-day Non-jury trial. This another reason the Defendant believes that this motion is being used as a stall tactic. The Plaintiff is basing it's request upon the provision given in MCR 2.503(D)(1), which states, “In it's discretion the Court may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of justice.” Being that there are three other attorneys assigned to this case, the Defendant believes that the proper way to promote the cause of justice would be to deny the Plaintiff's motion. The Plaintiff's motion was prepared on July 18, 2013. The Plaintiff then delayed filing the motion until July 24, 2013, and at that time filed via fax transmittal. The motion was overnighted to the Defendant and received on July 25, 2013, allowing only one business day, and four total days before the hearing to respond with an opposition. The Defendant believes this was an intentional act on the Plaintiff's part to to hinder the Defendant. The Plaintiff had the 18th, 19th, 22nd, and 23rd of July to properly file the motion and properly serve the Defendant, and they neglected to do so. In addition to the above, this motion was prepared within three days of this Honorable Court's order (and Defendant's posting of a bond ) for the Plaintiff to produce documents within 10 days, including account statements and payment records, providing authentication that the alleged account in question is actually that of the Defendant, and if so, that the Defendant had actually conducted transactions and made payments on alleged account. The Defendant believes that the Plaintiff ignored this Court Order, and instead filed this motion as some sort of tactic to circumvent and bypass the Court's order to produce. The Defendant experienced the same tactic during the discovery phase when requesting production of any documents from the alleged Original Creditor, , bearing the Defendant's signature, along with account statements, payment records, records of default, Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale between the two parties , listing the alleged account, that would authenticate the existence and accuracy of any alleged balance due. Within 8 days of receiving the Defendant's request, the Plaintiff filed their “Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer”, and refused to respond in any way to the Defendant's request to produce. The Defendant wholeheartedly believes the Plaintiff, if allowed, will continue to ignore any requests for the documentation this Honorable Court has required them to produce, and will employ further “stall tactics”, attempting to either hinder the Defendant's case, or hoping to eventually deter the Defendant's pursuit of justice in this matter. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this Court should deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for First Adjournment of Non-Jury Trial and dismiss this case in favor of the Defendant with prejudice. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
  2. Hi bmc100, Being that the Judge made the motion to produce this time (I had to post $500 bond), how would I type this up? Or would it be a verbal with a request to Dismiss with Prejudice based on their repeated non-compliance to production requests? Would I file an opposition (unless I were to combine it with my Opposition To First Adjournment filing, but don't know quite how i would merge the two), or would I be filing a Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Failure to Follow Court Order?? Thanks Again, ba
  3. Thanks, Savoir! So when I go before the Judge on Monday, if he doesn't dismiss it based on the Plaintiff's continued refusal to produce (or even acknowledge the request was made) the documents the Judge has asked for, and decides to allow the trial to go forward (with or without granting the "Adjournment"), I need to make sure when he brings up the Non-Production issue, that I make sure I ask the Judge to preclude any documents other than what is currently filed in the matter. Just want to be sure I have it right, Thanks, ba
  4. Thanks, bmc100!! Putting together the objection now. Also, should I file a motion for dismissal based on them not producing the documents via the court order? Or do I just address it when the Judge brings it up at the hearing on Monday, since the Plaintiff will have to give their excuse for refusing to respond to the court order, and instead replying to it by filing a Motion. This is exactly the same tactic they pulled on me back in June when I filed my discovery request for the same documents. They ignored my request, didn't respond to it in any way, and instead filed a Motion to Strike my Answer. I think this should be part of my verbal statement when I see the Judge. Since I don't have work conflicting with court, are there any other costs and/or damages that could be claimed if the judge were to grant them an adjournment? I can't really see that he would since they basically ignored his 10 day order, and it would be day 14 on Monday. The fact that they didn't respond in any way directly to the order should be grounds enough for dismissal. If I were asked to do the same, and I didn't respond in the 10 days, I would expect he would grant them their SJ. Anyway, thanks again!!! ba
  5. Hi Everyone! Savoir - Thanks for the info. It just irks me that they supposedly prepared this motion on the 18th and sat on it for 6 more days before rushing it out, figuring I wouldn't have time to file opposition and get it granted that way. I believe in MI they are supposed to mail 7 days before or deliver by hand 5 days before. If that's the case, they mailed it 2 days after the deadline. Again, your input has been so helpful bmc100 - I will do that. if you or anyone else could help guide me with structure that would be of great help. And thanks to you for your valuable assistance throughout. VADebtor - Wholeheartedly agree with your view. They could have raised this "issue" as late as the 15th, when we had the hearing on their Motion to Strike Defendant's Answer. Obviously they had expected to walk out that day with a SJ in their favor, but still could have made the Court aware that IF the trial proceeded they need an adjournment. The only problem with that is that they have had 4 attorneys listed on every document filed, so unless ALL 4 have conveniently scheduled "pre-paid vacations", I don't think it holds water. Great insight on your part. I wouldn't have been able to get this far without the entire CIC community's help! Thanks again, and blessings to all of you!!! ba
  6. Hi again all, shellieh98's post brought up some great ideas, and got me thinking about something: Was just wondering why they would date their motion on the 18th but wait until the 24th to file with the court. I received it on the 25th. Court is the 29th. There's not enough time to file a proper opposition 5 days hand delivered or 7 days mailed to Plaintiff.. SNEAKY!! Let me know if you think I have grounds there as well. Any help in putting an opposition together by Monday would be an answer to prayers! I think if I at least submit something to the Judge Monday morning I can let him know what their tactic was and they prevented me from having sufficient time to file, and request a dismissal with prejudice based on that and failure to produce. Want to do this right! THANKS!!! ba
  7. Hi Everyone, Ok. Today was the 10th day for the Plaintiff to produce documents. Here is what was FAXED to the court yesterday, and overnighted to me on the 9th day: Notice of Hearing Please take notice that Plaintiff's Motion for Adjournment will be brought at the court July 29th 2013. PLAiNTIFF'S MOTION FOR FIRST ADJOURMENT OF NON-JURY TRIAL NOW COMES Plaintiff, xxx, by and through it's attorney, xxx and for it's Motion For First Adjournment of Non-Jury Trial and states to this Honorable Court as follows: 1. Neither party has previously requested an adjournment. 2. Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant an adjournment of the Non-Jury trial set for August 5, 2013 because Plaintiff's counsel will not be available due to a pre-paid vacation. 3. Plaintiff would be unduly prejudiced if trial commenced without Plaintiff's attorney. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's attorney respectfully requests that this honorable grant its motion for first adjournment of Non-Jury trial. PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FIRST ADJOURNMENT OF NON-JURY TRIAL A Motion for Adjournment based on MCR 2.503 ( b )(2) States that a motion or stipulation for adjournment must state: a ) Which party is requesting the adjournment; b )The reason for it, and; c ) Whether other adjournments have been granted in the proceedings and, if so, the number granted. In this case, Plaintiff is requesting it's first adjournment on the grounds that Plaintiff's attorney will be on vacation and out of the country. In addition, Defendant would not be prejudiced in the granting of Plaintiff's motion. According to MCR 2.503 (D)(1), the Court in it's discretion may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of justice. Plaintiff submits to the court that the reason states stated above, the granting of Plaintiff's motion would promote the cause of justice. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff's attorney respectfully requests that this honorable grant its motion for first adjournment of Non-Jury trial. They "supposedly" typed this up on the 18th, 3 days after I posted the $500 bond for them to produce. They waited until July 24 to fax it to the court and overnight to me. I know they are probably trying to stall because they don't have anything to present. I'm calling the courthouse in the morning just to make sure they didn't slip something in on Thursday (10th day). Here's the kicker: On EVERY document the Plaintiff has filed with the court up to this one, they have listed 4 attorneys for the Plaintiff!! And they've known since the beginning of May that the trial was scheduled for the beginning of August. It's like once they knew I had put up the bond money, they decided that instead of producing any documents, they would check which one of the 4 was going to be on vacation and use that as an excuse to stall. Don't know what to do from here, going in on Monday morning. Should I file an answer with the court, or request a judgment for Defendant when I see the judge Monday?? Hate to ask, but might need some help writing something up. This might be my best opportunity to get dismissal since they haven't produced any documents within the 10 day window. I argued to the judge on the 15th that I had been asking for them since this all started, and he granted the request based on my lack of knowledge of the account. THANKS AGAIN EVERYONE!!! ba
  8. Hi all, Haven't been able to get back here in a few days, so I've just caught up with the responses. I did get a call from the law firm 3 days after I posted the bond money. I missed the call, they didn't leave a message. Should I bother calling them back or just let it play out? bmc100 - my case is not the one you were thinking of. But still, I hear you on the judge and the finding on standing. His opinion was that if they can prove that it's actually my debt, that they have shown enough to have the right to proceed. But he wants them to produce documents based on my not recalling the alleged debt. I told him I had other cards with HSBC as the provider, but they were either closed satisfactorily or currently active with no issues. If they are going to produce anything, it has to be submitted no later than Thursday, so I should receive it no later than Saturday. I will post what I get as soon as I get it. The hearing on the 29th is basically a continuance of the summary dispo hearing. It's not clear to me what the judge will do if theyfail to produce anything at that point. A non-jury trial is scheduled a week or so after that. My whole issue is that I do not recall the account. So the judge has asked them to provide account statements. I asked for something with my signature on it showing I opened the account, and statements showing it was actually used by me and payments were made by me. I don't know for sure whatthe judge is going to accept as proof, but he did state that I do have a right to be shown whether it is legitimately mine or not. Thanks again for all the feedback and advice. May you all be blessed for your efforts! Best, ba
  9. Hi all, Went to court Monday. There was a different rent-a-lawyer than the first time. He asked me if I wanted to talk. I said, "Sure, why not?" He was a little more agressive with me, saying "Why don't you just settle?" I told him I don't recall the card they are claiming debt on, and he looked at me and said, "Come on, you're gonna lose", but I kind of just walked away and said "Let's just let the judge do his job", and went back to my seat. Anyway, Judge came in, and the lawyer was a little overly friendly towards the Judge. I know the Judge a little, and I don't think that was an issue. He claimed I didn't file an answer to their motion, which the judge had in his file, and I neverfiled a counter-affidavit with my original answer. All the basic arguments to make his case. I basically concentrated on my not genuinely recalling the account, and that I had other HSBC accounts that were either closed satisfactorily, or were active and sold to Capital One. I did not recognise this one. I argued that there was more than one person with the same name as I in the state, and all they had produced was paperwork that I could have created myself with a laptop, internet access and a printer. That the ONLY document from HSBC was a photocopied final page "Bill of Sale", and they were piggy-backing an in-house created document, not HSBC'S, with my name on it as proof of the purchase. And that I had been asking for the Original agreement ro something with my signature or something that would prove me as the cardholder, statements showing activity by me, etc. since last year, without success. And I felt that instead of answering my request for discovery, they decided to file the motion to strike and for summary disposition because they don't have the documents I have been requesting. I told him if they had produced what I had asked for, we wouldn't be in court today taking up valuable time. To make a long story short, the Judge found there was standing, and stressed to me that there would be no further arguments heard on lack of standing, BUT he did feel there was an issue regarding my having recollection of the account. He stated that in the interest of justice and fairness, even though my argument was "thread-bare", he felt my asking for some actual account records to verify that it is actually me who had created activity on the account was fair. The lawyer pushed the fact that they had proven standing, and argued that their motion for judgement should be granted, and they shouldn't have to produce anything else showing that it was my account. He requested $500 bond because they would "have to incur a lot of expense and time to produce the documents requested by the court". The judge did grant them the request, and I had 24 hours to post it. I objected to the bond amount (but I would honor his final decision) on the grounds that I felt they had plenty of time since April to produce the documents, and had since received discovery requests on June 1. The judge was very patient with me on that, but let me know that if I was not going to agree to the bond, that he would be making his decision during this proceeding, and I probably wouldn't want that. He let me know that it would be returned to me if the case was determined in my favor, and to let the system do it's work. Which is OK with me. All I know is the Lawyer made sure several times of the deadline time to post, since if I didn't post it the case could be defaulted. I know the reason behind the lawyer's request was to see how serious I was about not settling, and hoping I wouldn't post the bond in time. So, I posted within 4 hours, same day, and the Judge gave them 10 days to produce documentation to the court and myself, and hearing on the 29th, the weekend after 10 days is up. Well, everybody, Let me know your thoughts!! And thanks again to ALL of you, Best, ba
  10. Hi BTO429, Great to hear from you on this as well! Thanks for the tips. I believe in their original they may have stated a breach of contract or agreement, and have since decided to use the account stated wording. Attached a "Bill of Sale" page (final page with HSBC signature only) and generated their own "page" listing the alleged account and my name (conveniently near the middle of the page) with numerous others x'd out. Getting ready to put together my opposition. I thought I saw an example one here somewhere. Just in case I can't locate and one of you comes across it, post the link if you can. Also, it has been 33 days since they received my discovery request and nothing received yet. I guess they kind of "answered" with the Motion, since it was prepared a week after they received the discovery requests for OC agreement, statements, etc. But, they ARE still required to provide me with an answer in that 30 days after receiving the request, right? If that is the case, let me know. And, would I put in my opposition that they failed to answer, and instead filed the Motion to Strike? THANKS AGAIN!!!! ba
  11. Savoir, Thanks for the info! I'll check with the court and verify. Best, buddyapple
  12. HI bmc100 and Savoir, Like I said, no matter HOW painful, constructive criticism is always appreciated! bmc100 - yep, that's my counter-affidavit. I know, I look at it now and it's pretty painful. Realize now it should have been "I have no documents listing the alleged account" etc. But, it is what it is at this point. Just wondering what to do from here. Court date for MSD is 7/15. All they have supplied is the last page of a "Bill of Sale" from HSBC, and are trying to piggy-back a single page, generated by AA, with a bunch of x's and right near the middle of the page (Psychology 101), an HSBC account number, my name and a balance due. Generated by AA on 6/13. Whatever you can advise, being the MI "guru" here, will be of great help.
  13. Hi shellieh98 & Savoir, Good to hear from you. Hope you are doing well. shellieh98 - Thanks again for the help with the discovery req. Even though you're not in MI, your input is always insightful and helpful! Savoir - No response to discovery as of yet. I'm thinking that since their motion was dated June 7, that's a week after they received it. I think they're trying to push the motion through because they CAN'T produce the OCA , statements showing I actually used it myself, etc, and don't want to produce the full Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale- give me your input and thoughts on that. Attached to the MSD they attached a photocopy of a "Bill of Sale" page,and piggy-backed a page produced in-house with a bunch of "X"s and in the middle of the page my name an account number and a balance. Not an HSBC document from the PA, but generated by AA. I did submit a counter - affidavit, but looking at it now, it does look more like an argument about their affidavit. Maybe not the brightest bulb on the tree here! Input from you, no matter HOW painful, is ALWAYS welcome! Here it is: EXHIBIT "B" STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ALLEGAN ) AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENDANT (COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT) I, XXXXXXX, Defendant, being over 18 years of age and competent, in response to each statement made by XXXXXXX, an employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, in the Affidavit of Account dated February 12, 2013, submitted by the Plaintiff as Exhibit "A", hereby affirm the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury, depose and states as follows: 1. DENY. Although I have received a Summons and Complaint from ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, I have had no contact with any person named XXXXXXX, or any personal knowledge that any such person exists, or is under employ by ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, so I cannot accept this statement as truthful. 2. ADMIT, IN PART. If ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, does have in it's employ the person listed in the Plaintiff's Affidavit, XXXXXXXX, then I would admit this employee would be familiar with the manner and method by which ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC creates and maintains it's business records pertaining to this account. That being stated, alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order for an Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff. 3. DENY. Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order for an Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff. 4. DENY. Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff. 5. DENY. Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order for the Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any activity on any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not, and could not have any personal knowledge of any actions taken by any predecessor(s)-in-interest on any alleged contract involving Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff. 6. DENY. Again, this alleged employee, or any employee of ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, would not, and could not, have any personal knowledge, and thereby cannot attest to the accuracy or authenticity of any records allegedly purchased by Plaintiff as required by the MICHIGAN RULES OF EVIDENCE, RULE 602. In order for the Affiant to have any personal knowledge of any alleged account the Defendant may have established with HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, it would require the individual creating the Plaintiff's Affidavit to be an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA. This individual is not. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff. Furthermore, this individual would either need to be a direct participant, personally present as a first-hand witness or an actual party to the signing and transfer of any alleged Purchase Agreement or Bill of Sale between HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, and ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC in order for this statement to be truthful and accurate. This would also require an employee of HSBC BANK, NEVADA NA, who was a direct participant in any such Purchase Agreement or Bill of Sale to confirm this employee's direct participation in said transaction. Therefore, the Defendant cites Lack of Knowledge of and by the Plaintiff. 7. DENY. Signed this 4th Day of April, 2013. ________________________________ THANKS AGAIN to you both! ba
  14. Hi everyone, Just received a letter from Asset's Law firm with a court date of July 15th. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Answer and for Summary Disposition. They want theirsubmitted paperwork to be Prima Facie evidence, stating the Defendant failed to state a valid defense and failed to file a counter affidavit to theirs. I had sent a Discovery request on the 25th of May requesting the Cardmember Agreement and proof of Initial transactions, along with documents showingdefault date, charge-off date, the Purchase Agreement and Bill of Sale. It's ironic that they filed their Motion on June 7, just a week after I requested the items above. I will try to post the Motion in the next couple of days for you. I'm assuming this is normal procedure on their part. Just need some advice on how to handle this. Should I be filing anything, or just go in on the 15th and ask the Judge to compel them to produce the CA, initial transaction records, default and charge-off statements, and the Purchase Agreement, letting him know that is ALL I've been asking for all along, and we wouldn't be wasting the court's time if they would just provide it. Here in MI I know of at least one Judge that has requested production of the CA upon the Defendant's request. When they didn't produce it in a timely manner, I believe he dismissed it with prejudice. I hope that more courts begin to take that stance. Once they've provided those documents there's really nothing more to argue about. THANKS AGAIN to all of you who have been of such great help here! Best to you, buddyapple