Jump to content

How to find Oklahoma Case Law


Recommended Posts

Right now I am in the process of writing my MTS Affidavit. In oklahoma I am to file a brief and authorities with this motion, so I am collecting case law in regards to "personal knowledge" and "false affidavits" to help support my motion.

I have been able to find just about every state BUT Oklahoma?!!! :confused: What am I doing wrong here?

Some tips and advice on finding state specific case law would be greatly appreciated.

If you'd like I can post the rough draft for my MTS.

Thanks!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am collecting case law in regards to "personal knowledge"

If you're going to challenge the "personal knowledge" of the affiant, what facts or knowledge are you in possession of that the affiant does not have the claimed knowledge?

Simply put, if you attempt to oppose the affidavit by claiming, "judge, the affiant is falsely claiming to have personal knowledge," then how would you prove that. You, youself, don't have the "personal knowledge" to testify that the affiant has no "personal knowledge."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're going to challenge the "personal knowledge" of the affiant, what facts or knowledge are you in possession of that the affiant does not have the claimed knowledge?

information and belief that the affiant has not worked for the original creditor therefore not being present or having personal knowledge when the alleged "agreement" was formed if it was formed

Simply put, if you attempt to oppose the affidavit by claiming, "judge, the affiant is falsely claiming to have personal knowledge," then how would you prove that. You, youself, don't have the "personal knowledge" to testify that the affiant has no "personal knowledge."

all I have is LINKEDIN printouts giving the work history of the affiant, plus the website of the plaintiff that does list her as an employee

I am at a loss at what to do at this point. I still have another 1 1/2 to answer the summons, in Oklahoma you cannot file a motion to strike after any pleadings, so if I want a shot at this, I need to do it before I file my answer.

Is there a better way to blow this bs affidavit out of the water?!

I am open to any suggestions. Thanks for your time, I always appreciate all advice!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am running out of time to file my answer and I know that in my state I NEED to counter this affidavit before my answer is filed!!! I have spent at a minimum 2 hours a day researching this topic and drafting a MTS and a counter affidavit!

I am burning out quickly, it isn't that I am not doing the work, I just really have no idea what is the best stradegy in this case, I am waiting to hear from an attorney on the matter, but I haven't had much luck in consulting with these "pros" they want me to settle, I CAN'T AFFORD TO SETTLE!

anyways, I will just keep on researching and maybe I'll find what I am looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am running out of time to file my answer and I know that in my state I NEED to counter this affidavit before my answer is filed!!! I have spent at a minimum 2 hours a day researching this topic and drafting a MTS and a counter affidavit!

I am burning out quickly, it isn't that I am not doing the work, I just really have no idea what is the best stradegy in this case, I am waiting to hear from an attorney on the matter, but I haven't had much luck in consulting with these "pros" they want me to settle, I CAN'T AFFORD TO SETTLE!

anyways, I will just keep on researching and maybe I'll find what I am looking for.

I'm not sure you'd be successful striking the affidavit. It merely states that the claims in the Complaint are true. In my opinion, that would be a difficult affidavit to strike.

I think you should concentrate on striking the cc statements. If the JDB didn't include an affidavit stating that the cc statements are true and correct copies, the statements haven't been authenticated.

OK Rules of Evidence

§2902. Self-Authentication

8. Documents accompanied by a certificate of acknowledgment under the hand and the seal of a notary public or other officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments;

§2803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial

6. Any form of memorandum, report, record or data compilation of acts, events, conditions, opinions or diagnosis, made at or near the time by or from information transmitted by a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified witness, unless the source of information or the method or circumstances of preparation indicate lack of trustworthiness. The term "business" as used in this paragraph includes business, institution, association, profession, occupation and calling of every kind, whether or not conducted for profit;

Because the statements were not accompanied by an affidavit as required in Rule 2902(8), they have not been authenticated. Therefore, they don't comply with Rule 2803(6) and are, thus, hearsay.

Edited by BV80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co., 586 P. 2d 726 - Okla: Supreme Court

Rule 13. 12 O.S. 1977 Supp. Ch. 2 App. provides: "A party may move for judgment in his favor on the ground that the depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits on file, filed with his motion or subsequently filed with leave of court show that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact. The adverse party may file affidavits and other materials in opposition to the motion. The affidavits which are filed by either party shall be made on personal knowledge, shall show that the affiant is competent to testify as to the matters stated therein, and shall set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. The court shall render judgment if it appears that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the court finds that there is no substantial controversy as to certain facts or issues, it shall make an order specifying the facts or issues which are not in controversy and direct that the action proceed for a determination of the facts or issues... ."

Thereafter, the opposing party must show, by materials included with the response, that there is a material fact remaining in dispute. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. v. Vick, 840 P.2d 619, 623 (Okla. 1992); Hargrave, 792 P.2d at 55.

Seitsinger v. Dockum Pontiac Inc., 894 P. 2d 1077 - Okla: Supreme Court

As these considerations strongly suggest, summary judgments are not favored, Love v. Harvey, 448 P.2d 456, 462 (Okla. 1968); and, they should be granted only where it is `perfectly clear' that there are not issues of material fact in a case... .

You did not say if the affidavit was notarized. If not, look at this case:

Bundren v. Car Connection, Inc., 963 P. 2d 634 - Okla:

4 Car Connection challenged the affidavit, saying it was not made on personal knowledge and it had not been made under oath. An affidavit offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge, and must show that the affiant is competent to testify about the subjects of his testimony. Rule 13©, 12 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch. 2, App Title 12 O.S.1991 § 422 defines an affidavit as "a written declaration, under oath, made without notice to the adverse party."

Your objection has to raise some triable issue of fact. You can claim discovery is incomplete, as you want to send interrogatories etc concerning this affidavit. Nascar is correct, you cannot claim your own personal knowledge of the other guy's knowledge. What I would do is simply challenge them to prove that they do have personal knowledge. I can claim to have personal knowledge of Lady Gaga's underwear; that doesn't make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuckey v. Young Exploration Co., 586 P. 2d 726 - Okla: Supreme Court

Rule 13. 12 O.S. 1977 Supp. Ch. 2 App. provides: "A party may move for judgment in his favor on the ground that the depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and affidavits on file, filed with his motion or subsequently filed with leave of court show that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact. The adverse party may file affidavits and other materials in opposition to the motion. The affidavits which are filed by either party shall be made on personal knowledge, shall show that the affiant is competent to testify as to the matters stated therein, and shall set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence. The court shall render judgment if it appears that there is no substantial controversy as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the court finds that there is no substantial controversy as to certain facts or issues, it shall make an order specifying the facts or issues which are not in controversy and direct that the action proceed for a determination of the facts or issues... ."

Thereafter, the opposing party must show, by materials included with the response, that there is a material fact remaining in dispute. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. v. Vick, 840 P.2d 619, 623 (Okla. 1992); Hargrave, 792 P.2d at 55.

Seitsinger v. Dockum Pontiac Inc., 894 P. 2d 1077 - Okla: Supreme Court

As these considerations strongly suggest, summary judgments are not favored, Love v. Harvey, 448 P.2d 456, 462 (Okla. 1968); and, they should be granted only where it is `perfectly clear' that there are not issues of material fact in a case... .

You did not say if the affidavit was notarized. If not, look at this case:

Bundren v. Car Connection, Inc., 963 P. 2d 634 - Okla:

4 Car Connection challenged the affidavit, saying it was not made on personal knowledge and it had not been made under oath. An affidavit offered in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment must be made on personal knowledge, and must show that the affiant is competent to testify about the subjects of his testimony. Rule 13©, 12 O.S.Supp.1993, Ch. 2, App Title 12 O.S.1991 § 422 defines an affidavit as "a written declaration, under oath, made without notice to the adverse party."

Your objection has to raise some triable issue of fact. You can claim discovery is incomplete, as you want to send interrogatories etc concerning this affidavit. Nascar is correct, you cannot claim your own personal knowledge of the other guy's knowledge. What I would do is simply challenge them to prove that they do have personal knowledge. I can claim to have personal knowledge of Lady Gaga's underwear; that doesn't make it true.

Thank you thank you thank you....guess overtime I will get better with searching for these things.

Your objection has to raise some triable issue of fact. You can claim discovery is incomplete, as you want to send interrogatories etc concerning this affidavit. Nascar is correct, you cannot claim your own personal knowledge of the other guy's knowledge. What I would do is simply challenge them to prove that they do have personal knowledge

I understand that I need to do this but I just haven't figured out the best way.

Is the Motion to strike just overkill in this situation? I am beginning to think so.

Would a sworn denial, filed with my answer, serve to raise triable issue of fact?

In the petition the JDB says that the alleged aggreement was with CHASE when in fact the CC was originally with WAMU and the alleged default took place. So swearing that I did not enter into an agreement with CHASE is not really committing perjury?! right? :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I will learn to use that soon.

What I ended up doing so far:

I filed a standard denial with a counter affidavit notarized and attached. I attacked the fact that the affiant did not mention personal knowleged yada yada. I also had counter claims in the answer. 20 days is up next week. I have only recieved a "debt validation" from the attorneys, no answer to the counter claims as of yet.

Just an update on this case. I will probably be starting a new thread soon to look into a default judgement on the counter claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.