Can CAL. CCP. CODE § 116.222 be used at trial

[VLDCA]

I was wondering if the Plaintiff has brought a claim to civil limited court but haven't supplied all the statements could you argue this code to have it excluded into evidence?

CAL. CCP. CODE § 116.222 : California Code - Section 116.222

If the action is to enforce the payment of a debt, the statement of calculation of liability shall separately state the original debt, each payment credited to the debt, each fee and charge added to the debt, each payment credited against those fees and charges, all other debits or charges to the account, and an explanation of the nature of those fees, charges, debits, and all other credits to the debt, by source and amount.

Thanks!

[Seadragon]

I think though that if they bring a limited civil action of the type that is within the small claims court amount that they cannot collected attorneys fees.

good looking up stuff though.

[calawyer]

I was wondering if the Plaintiff has brought a claim to civil limited court but haven't supplied all the statements could you argue this code to have it excluded into evidence?

CAL. CCP. CODE § 116.222 : California Code - Section 116.222

If the action is to enforce the payment of a debt, the statement of calculation of liability shall separately state the original debt, each payment credited to the debt, each fee and charge added to the debt, each payment credited against those fees and charges, all other debits or charges to the account, and an explanation of the nature of those fees, charges, debits, and all other credits to the debt, by source and amount.

Thanks!

This section only applies to small claims court actions. But I have suggested that folks keep it in mind when bringing a motrion to compel further BOP. So if the plaintiff opposed your motion and says you are asking for too much information, I think this should be one of your arguments. Judge: "look what the legislature has required plaintiff to show in a SMALL CLAIMS case. It is obviously relevant and must be provided in cases such as this one where the amount at issue is GREATER."

No reason you can't make the same argument at trial if the accounting is insufficient.

[helpme]

Hi VLDCA,

This is what I found that you may be able to use but verify with CALAWYER or Seadragon. In the above stated book ref #: KFC/995/C35/2004 if you want to go the law library it states for the BOP:

Section 30.4 1. Right to Itemization of Total Sum Alleged

A party served with a complaint or cross-complaint on an account pleaded in general terms is entitled to a copy of the account within 10 days after serving a written demand. see Dobbins v Hardister (1966) 242 CA2d 787, 794, 51 CR 866.

I think If you quote the Legal reference above it will stand in court. Again CALAWYER will need to validate this.

Here's more info, if they don't give you the itemization of the life of the account you can use this:

Section 30.12 2. Limits Evidence and Recovery

A Bill of Particulars fixes the legal position of the party giving it in several respects:

1. When the bill shows that the claim is for an amount less than demaned in the pleading, recovery is limited to the lesser amount. For example, in Abbott v Limited Mut. Compensation Ins. Co. (1938) 30 CA2d 157,85 P2d 961, the complaint demanded $5000 for service rendered, but the items in the bill came only to $3055, and recovery was limited to $3055.

2. Evidence offered at trail beyond the scope of items covered in the bill may be excluded. For example, a party omitting reference to credits on an account in the party's bill of particulars may be barred from testifying about the credits at trial. Robertson v Bonelli (1944) 65 CA2d 704, 151 P2d 307. see also Banchero v Coffix (1950) 96 CA2d 717, 722, 216 P2d 151 (trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to exclude evidence on value of services rendered when plaintiff had not furnished bill of particulars on defendant's demand)

my mistake - just verified this at law library. Can only use this line of reasoning if you mtc BOP. if you didn't mtc bop you waive your right to claim bop defective which I'm assuming why you're trying to use ccp 116.222.

But calawyer makes a good case on how you can use it.

Edited December 20, 2011 by helpme