Recommended Posts

Cannot give too much information but the trial was yesterday and we lost on a technicality. The judge assigned was new because our main judge was caught up in another trial. The judged asked the spouse if they were an attorney representing themselves based upon the pleadings. However pleadings and such do NOT make up for a lack of trial practice. 1 simple technicality can ruin your whole trial even IF you have proper documentation that you were right about a specific matter. If they get a piece of dog crap and try to enter that into evidence, if you don't object with something reasonable they will get it into the record and that piece of dog crap is evidence before the court of your debt. A stupid analogy...I know but all true. That is why it is vitally important to not only get your pleadings to be tight but to also understand a little bit about trial procedures so you won't go so far just to get slammed. If you want more details PM me. We are fine though, there are other options we can take to have the court reconsider or do a motion to set payments or something else. We will be fine. All of this taught us a valuable lesson too, if one spouse does all the legal work and the other spouse doesn't study what they are supposed to study then the couple isn't unified to the degree it ought to be and can be easily crushed. Lessons learned on a lot of levels now me and the spouse are contemplating the nature of happiness and oddly the loss at trial doesn't bother us to the extent that it might have a couple of weeks ago even. We're okay:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However pleadings and such do NOT make up for a lack of trial practice. 1 simple technicality can ruin your whole trial even IF you have proper documentation that you were right about a specific matter. If they get a piece of dog crap and try to enter that into evidence, if you don't object with something reasonable they will get it into the record and that piece of dog crap is evidence before the court of your debt. A stupid analogy...I know but all true.

Far from a stupid analogy, in fact a perfect analogy. It's preached here all the time over and over. Evidence is not inadmissible on it's face. It has to be properly objected to and/or countered or it is admitted into evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannot give too much information but the trial was yesterday and we lost on a technicality

You lost on a technicality? I can't believe this. You are such an expert on CA law. I know, because you told us so. Apparently the judge had some suspicion as to who was actually running the case. Trial practice is kind of out the window if you can't convince the judge you're doing your own work. I know I zing you somewhat, but I hope you prevail. Just hope they don't hit you with an unauthorized practice of law complaint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cannot give too much information but the trial was yesterday and we lost on a technicality

You lost on a technicality? I can't believe this. You are such an expert on CA law. I know, because you told us so. Apparently the judge had some suspicion as to who was actually running the case. Trial practice is kind of out the window if you can't convince the judge you're doing your own work. I know I zing you somewhat, but I hope you prevail. Just hope they don't hit you with an unauthorized practice of law complaint.

Leagleeagle my old friend. Never once have I claimed to be an expert on CA law at all. The only thing I've discussed with any hint of authority is Bill of Particulars and Motion for more definite statement from personal and other experiences. Yes it was apparent that the spouse was tongue tied and the spouse asked the judge from the beginning if I could speak because I did all the work! Of course the judge said NO because I am not an attorney, but he did say he understood that spouses work together on these things. hahhahahahahhaha My spouse had absolutely no clue and this is a problem! I will consider a motion to reconsider for certain and I have only ten days for one! So thanks for the suggestion to 1st Step.

And Coltfan I figured you might like the analogy! Sometimes we have to understand the nature of our losses. I know that we lost because my spouse didn't prepare and I was too darned neurotic about everything. Lesson learned and there are no hard feelings at all! Either way it goes we'll be quite fine because we found happiness from within8-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sucks.

The last time I got served it was against Defendant and Jane Doe Defendant.

If my wife get one that says Defendant and John Doe Defendant can I assist in the defense?

Edited by Rudy Baylor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the non member spouse really needs to become a member and participate here.

Having said that, a motion for new trial or JNOV would help and the spouse can say I have a deep seated fear of speaking in public, and request a new trial for the reason that the document is outside of the personal knowledge of the affiant. That no standing has been shown:

The case can be shown to be incorrectly decided due to Plaintiff's lack of standing, errors of law, abuses of discretion, errors of the respondent which natural consequences were prejudicial to appellants rights of cross-examination, to have only admissible and well-founded evidence admitted at trial.

“Where the improper introduction of evidence results in a miscarriage of justice, reversal is required. ( In re Lynna B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 682, 704 [155 Cal.Rptr. 256]; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) We believe it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have occurred absent the erroneous admission of the records. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 834 [299 P.2d 243].)” In re Shannon C., 179 Cal. App. 3d 334 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1986)

The finding of the court below is not in keeping with the partially published case of Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011):

“We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, § 1271, subd. (d).)n5 Information concerning this foundational element was conspicuously lacking.n6 Yet, this information was critical in light of the evidentiary gap establishing the purported assignments from Long Beach Mortgage Company to Washington Mutual Bank to JPMorgan Chase Bank. The records used to generate the information in the assignment of deed of trust, if they exist, were undoubtedly records not prepared by CRC, but records prepared by Long Beach Mortgage Company, Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase. Defendants have not shown how Brignac could have provided information about the source of that information or how those documents were prepared. (See Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039 [45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183] [district attorney unable to attest to attributes of subpoenaed records in his possession relevant to their authenticity and trustworthiness]; Evid. Code, § 1561.) Moreover, the timing of those purported assignments relative to the recording of those events on the assignment of deed of trust cannot be found in the Brignac declaration or anywhere else in the record.

Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011)

Note 5 “Brignac stated the following in her declaration concerning the foundational elements for the business records exception: “1. I am a Vice President of California Reconveyance Company (‘CRC'). I am also a custodian of records for CRC and am one of the custodians of records for the loan which is the subject of plaintiffs' Complaint in this case. These records include computer records and written correspondence. I make this declaration based on my review of these records, as well as plaintiffs' Complaint. If called as a witness in this case, I am competent to testify of my own personal knowledge, to the best of my recollection, as to the matters set forth in this Declaration. [¶] 2. The CRC loan records were made in the ordinary course of business by individuals who had a business duty to make such entries and records, and were made at or about the time of the events reflected in the records.”

No further attempt was made to establish the foundational elements for the business record exception.”
Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011 n.5)

“A litigant's standing to sue is a threshold issue to be resolved before the matter can be reached on the merits. (Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co. (1980) 105 Cal. App. 3d 65, 71 [164 Cal. Rptr. 279].) If we were to conclude that plaintiff did not have standing to maintain the action, not having been personally damaged by the defendants' conduct, then there would be no need to address the merits of her cause. Equally wasteful of judicial resources would be a resolution on the merits without reaching the standing issue.” (Ibid.)

We will not address the merits of litigation when the plaintiff lacks standing, because “ ‘California courts have no power … to render advisory opinions or give declaratory relief.’ ” (Municipal Court v. Superior Court (Gonzalez) (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1126, 1132 [22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504, 857 P.2d 325].)Standing‘goes to the existence of a cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 862, p. 320.)”

The issue of Standing can be raised even on appeal to the Appellate Division.

“Lack of standing may be raised at any time in the proceeding, including at trial or in an appeal. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 361 [87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 654, 981 P.2d 499] [associational standing to seek writ ofmandate under Code Civ. Proc., § 1086]; Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438, 439 [261 Cal. Rptr. 574, 777 P.2d 610] [citizen standing to seek writ of mandate to compel public agency to perform its public duty]; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 862, p. 320.)

"We may decide a standing issue even if the trial court did not rule on the issue. (Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co., supra, 105 Cal. App. 3d at p. 71; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 862, p. 320.)”

That should help Gee I wonder where Sea got that caselaw HMMM.... Looks like an appellate level arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are a kind, generous and loving person for providing this exceedingly relevant information. There are documents that verify the spouses mental conditions also. Our bad though, for not getting an attorney for the trial. The good thing is that the pleadings speak for themselves. Big time. They show the issues, meet and confer letters and everything so I get this now. Thanks so much. I shall have to work on this the rest of the week now so I don't miss the deadlines for filing any of this stuff.

Lastly what does JNOV mean?

Thank you.

the non member spouse really needs to become a member and participate here.

Having said that, a motion for new trial or JNOV would help and the spouse can say I have a deep seated fear of speaking in public, and request a new trial for the reason that the document is outside of the personal knowledge of the affiant. That no standing has been shown:

The case can be shown to be incorrectly decided due to Plaintiff's lack of standing, errors of law, abuses of discretion, errors of the respondent which natural consequences were prejudicial to appellants rights of cross-examination, to have only admissible and well-founded evidence admitted at trial.

“Where the improper introduction of evidence results in a miscarriage of justice, reversal is required. ( In re Lynna B. (1979) 92 Cal.App.3d 682, 704 [155 Cal.Rptr. 256]; Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13.) We believe it is reasonably probable a more favorable result would have occurred absent the erroneous admission of the records. ( People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818, 834 [299 P.2d 243].)” In re Shannon C., 179 Cal. App. 3d 334 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1986)

The finding of the court below is not in keeping with the partially published case of Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011):

“We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, § 1271, subd. (d).)n5 Information concerning this foundational element was conspicuously lacking.n6 Yet, this information was critical in light of the evidentiary gap establishing the purported assignments from Long Beach Mortgage Company to Washington Mutual Bank to JPMorgan Chase Bank. The records used to generate the information in the assignment of deed of trust, if they exist, were undoubtedly records not prepared by CRC, but records prepared by Long Beach Mortgage Company, Washington Mutual and JPMorgan Chase. Defendants have not shown how Brignac could have provided information about the source of that information or how those documents were prepared. (See Cooley v. Superior Court (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1039 [45 Cal. Rptr. 3d 183] [district attorney unable to attest to attributes of subpoenaed records in his possession relevant to their authenticity and trustworthiness]; Evid. Code, § 1561.) Moreover, the timing of those purported assignments relative to the recording of those events on the assignment of deed of trust cannot be found in the Brignac declaration or anywhere else in the record.

Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011)

Note 5 “Brignac stated the following in her declaration concerning the foundational elements for the business records exception: “1. I am a Vice President of California Reconveyance Company (‘CRC'). I am also a custodian of records for CRC and am one of the custodians of records for the loan which is the subject of plaintiffs' Complaint in this case. These records include computer records and written correspondence. I make this declaration based on my review of these records, as well as plaintiffs' Complaint. If called as a witness in this case, I am competent to testify of my own personal knowledge, to the best of my recollection, as to the matters set forth in this Declaration. [¶] 2. The CRC loan records were made in the ordinary course of business by individuals who had a business duty to make such entries and records, and were made at or about the time of the events reflected in the records.”

No further attempt was made to establish the foundational elements for the business record exception.”
Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
, 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2011 n.5)

“A litigant's standing to sue is a threshold issue to be resolved before the matter can be reached on the merits. (Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co. (1980) 105 Cal. App. 3d 65, 71 [164 Cal. Rptr. 279].) If we were to conclude that plaintiff did not have standing to maintain the action, not having been personally damaged by the defendants' conduct, then there would be no need to address the merits of her cause. Equally wasteful of judicial resources would be a resolution on the merits without reaching the standing issue.” (Ibid.)

We will not address the merits of litigation when the plaintiff lacks standing, because “ ‘California courts have no power … to render advisory opinions or give declaratory relief.’ ” (Municipal Court v. Superior Court (Gonzalez) (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1126, 1132 [22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 504, 857 P.2d 325].)Standing‘goes to the existence of a cause of action.’ [Citation.]” (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed. 1997) Pleading, § 862, p. 320.)”

The issue of Standing can be raised even on appeal to the Appellate Division.

“Lack of standing may be raised at any time in the proceeding, including at trial or in an appeal. (Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 352, 361 [87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 654, 981 P.2d 499] [associational standing to seek writ ofmandate under Code Civ. Proc., § 1086]; Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 438, 439 [261 Cal. Rptr. 574, 777 P.2d 610] [citizen standing to seek writ of mandate to compel public agency to perform its public duty]; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 862, p. 320.)

"We may decide a standing issue even if the trial court did not rule on the issue. (Hernandez v. Atlantic Finance Co., supra, 105 Cal. App. 3d at p. 71; 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, Pleading, § 862, p. 320.)”

That should help Gee I wonder where Sea got that caselaw HMMM.... Looks like an appellate level arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is tricky I got mine wrong the court said it was in the form of a new trial motion. I made that motion and a new trial motion to give the court a chance to change it's mind before appeal and to give me more time to get the appeal together.

I have examples but the court allowed them to be denied by letting the time to rule on them run out.

I know how you guys feel hopefully the decision in my appeal will come through maybe it will help.

a motion for new trial may make all the stuff be reversed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leagleeagle my old friend. Never once have I claimed to be an expert on CA law at all.

Well, we did have our moments, but be advised that I will still help you if I can. I am learning CA law because it is almost required.....so many suits here from your state. Good luck. Contentiousness is always cured by a kind word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.