Settlement prior to trial

[Takin' Charge]

I was told that upon my arrival at the courthouse tomorrow I'd probably be approached by the Plantiff's attorney in an attempt to settle. Now, I know that the first question I will ask is what proof do they have that shows I owe the debt. "IF" by chance they have sufficient proof (Can someone remind me, in list form or weblink, exactly what "proof" I am looking for?) I am then faced with the dilemma of settling or taking a stab at defending myself arguing SOL (open/5yrs vs. written/10yrs) in front of the judge.

If I feel as though it is in my best interest to settle I would like to be prepared with my offer as well as a letter for them to sign. In the letter I will list the amount of the debt and the agreed upon settlement amount. According to this webpage and the sample letter available for download here I should be asking to have my credit report changed to have the CA removed. The problem is, they aren't showing up on my CR. I printed 2 of the big 3 yesterday and the third back in December. I see the OC and another CA who owned this debt previously, but I do not see the current CA.

What are the odds that if I settle they will suddenly report this account to the CRAs? Should I note something of the effect that under no circumstances should the CA list anything of this debt on my CR?

Just trying to line my ducks up here::linedancers::...I get the feeling I'll only have one shot at it!

[trueq]

the plaintiff must prove:

(1) the existence of the note in question;

(2) that the party sued signed the note;

(3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and

(4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note.

They may do the above in one of a few ways...

1.)By counsel testifying

2.) By affidavit of firsthand witness,

3.) By live witness

You simply have to remember the following...

Lack of first-hand knowledge = Lack of competence to testify

"OBJECTION! Counsel is testifying" should fly from your mouth everytime counsel attempts to testify, and they will!!!! The only way they can testify is if you don't object! So OBJECT early and often on alleged facts flying from their mouth. This scenerio will be especially prounounced if they do not bring a witness or an affidavit!!!

Affidavits (and subsequent exhibits) are inadmissable unless the person signing the affidavit is available to be cross-examined to Competence and firsthand knowledge!!! Object to it being submitted as fact befoe the court!!! The judge may over-rule, but you just secured solid grounds for appeal, because the judge errored.

Witness. Have your cross questions ready. Ask about things that may impair judgment on the job, drinking, drug use, (prescription and illegal), working conditions, job pressure, etc. Destroy witness creadibility. Ask about how records are kept, if they were soley responsible for alleged account, if not, who, computer procedures, audit procedures, how often are computers tested and audited for accuracy, etc, etc, There are many other things you need to ask.

I can't stress enough of needing to nip the "counsel testifying" issue in the bud!! Chances are, that's all they have!

If they have any other document evidence, object on the basis the document have not been authenticated!

If they have no facts on record, you win.

Court can rely on your affidavit of denial.

Court cases are won or lost far before trial. I suspect plaintiff is not close to proving any of it in your case, based on your short blurb. (unless you let important info out)

This is a simplistic view of your strategy and should not be relied on as all encompassing legal advice, get a lawyer if you want that. I'm just someone who likes to cause debt lawyers pain, I'm not even close to being a lawyer.

[andbowd]

Thanks

[Takin' Charge]

the plaintiff must prove:

(1) the existence of the note in question;

(2) that the party sued signed the note;

(3) that the plaintiff is the owner or holder of the note; and

(4) that a certain balance is due and owing on the note.

They may do the above in one of a few ways...

1.)By counsel testifying

2.) By affidavit of firsthand witness,

3.) By live witness

You simply have to remember the following...

Lack of first-hand knowledge = Lack of competence to testify

"OBJECTION! Counsel is testifying" should fly from your mouth everytime counsel attempts to testify, and they will!!!! The only way they can testify is if you don't object! So OBJECT early and often on alleged facts flying from their mouth. This scenerio will be especially prounounced if they do not bring a witness or an affidavit!!!

Affidavits (and subsequent exhibits) are inadmissable unless the person signing the affidavit is available to be cross-examined to Competence and firsthand knowledge!!! Object to it being submitted as fact befoe the court!!! The judge may over-rule, but you just secured solid grounds for appeal, because the judge errored.

Witness. Have your cross questions ready. Ask about things that may impair judgment on the job, drinking, drug use, (prescription and illegal), working conditions, job pressure, etc. Destroy witness creadibility. Ask about how records are kept, if they were soley responsible for alleged account, if not, who, computer procedures, audit procedures, how often are computers tested and audited for accuracy, etc, etc, There are many other things you need to ask.

I can't stress enough of needing to nip the "counsel testifying" issue in the bud!! Chances are, that's all they have!

If they have any other document evidence, object on the basis the document have not been authenticated!

If they have no facts on record, you win.

Court can rely on your affidavit of denial.

Court cases are won or lost far before trial. I suspect plaintiff is not close to proving any of it in your case, based on your short blurb. (unless you let important info out)

This is a simplistic view of your strategy and should not be relied on as all encompassing legal advice, get a lawyer if you want that. I'm just someone who likes to cause debt lawyers pain, I'm not even close to being a lawyer.

Thank you so very much for all of this info. I can't imagine it getting that interesting in small claims court. Having said that though, I feel much more confident about what to look/listen for from Plaintiff's attorneys.

[Dette]

I thought that at small claims court attorneys are not allowed?

[CarolinaBlueEyes]

I thought that at small claims court attorneys are not allowed?

These cases are usually civil cases not small claims cases, so the poster might be confused on that, but as far as I know in small claims there are no lawyers, but again this could be by region or state.

[momof5]

At small claims here in FL, the plaintiff often has a lawyer...they are the ones who filed the case. Most often the defendants have not chosen to be represented. Small claims in many states is based on AMOUNT nothing more.

Here, the judge will call the defendant up and ask one question...do you owe the debt. Saves a lot of time in their eyes because 99% of the time, the defendant, not knowing better will admit to it.

If you don't admit it, they will have you sit down and wait until they finished with everyone else.

In my case, I did admit the debt and then the judge sends the parties out into the lobby to negotiate. I offered payments (3) in exchange for dismissal of the case. Lawyer was cool with that and we signed a written agreement on the spot and it was turned into the court. Made my payments and got the dismissal in the mail. For the others being sued by the same lawyer, they got default judgments.

It is always best to know your local legal system and how it works and ALWAYS go to court!