Jump to content

do i need to answer back to midland response to defendant s moton to strike affidavit


Recommended Posts

hey guys i am new to this forum and i need some help.

just got Midland response to my motion to strike their affidavit, i would like to answer back but not sure how to read what their saying.

Here is what they wrote.

The Defandant has not given has a valid reason for Plantiff s affidavit to be struck.it is not necessary for the custodian to have actual knowledge of the event to testify as to the contents of the recocords.If believed, the defendant s argument would be simply yeld absurd results.For example, if the defant s argument were true, no hospital records s custodians could testify as to billings of doctors.The actual doctors would need to testify as to each abd every procedure and what ammount the procedure is billed at.

It s for these reasons, custodians can testify as to the content of records in their possession.MRE803(6).Th affiant does not need to be an employee of the original creditor.She is an employee of Plantiff and had knowledge of Plantiff s record.Upon information and belief, as Plantiff has reived numerous verbatim motion thoughout the state, Defandant printed this motion off the internet.

And basically for all these reasons they are asking the court to deny my motion.

Their affidavit was the tipical Midland affidavit.

Let me know what do u think, should i answer back or not.

help!!!

Edited by Etsole73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can respond, I do this all the time. This thing they wrote is so laughable I can't even tell you.

it is not necessary for the custodian to have actual knowledge of the event

Really? When did Midland rewrite the law, exempting themselves from the rules of evidence?

The affiant does not need to be an employee of the original creditor. She is an employee of Plantiff and had knowledge of Plantiff's records.

Too bad she doesn't have any knowledge of the OC's records, which is all that counts. We could care less about a JDB's records, they prove nothing.

Upon information and belie, as Plantiff has reived numerous verbatim motion thoughout the atate, Defandant printed this motion off the internet.

I have no clue, typing is awful. If they are accusing you of downloading your motion off the internet, too bad for them. Ever hear of the First Amendment, you morons? We can show them probably a hundred motions from them, identical in content, that THEY served on CIC members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listen to LE, he/she has very good advice.

As for the receiving of a reply to your motion, you should be so lucky. I struck down their bogus affidavit more than 2 weeks ago, and haven't heard anything since (they had 10 days to respond to it, at least here in AZ.) Although, if I got that kind of response, I'd ROFLMAO!

Midland is a joke, read everything about them you can on here. Don't be afraid or intimidated, they are VERY beatable ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my case is schedule for a final settlement conference and a bench trial right after.

I guess i have time to answer to their opposition and then as usual they have nothing on me but that stupid affidavit.

When should i been asking for production of documents????

Edited by Etsole73
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is not necessary for the custodian to have actual knowledge of the event

It is well settled law that in order for a witness to lay the foundation for the admission of a document as a business record the witness must demonstrate personal knowledge of the business practices and procedures pursuant to which the document was made (see Reiss v Roadhouse Rest., 70 AD3d 1021, 1025 [2d Dept 2010]; Lodato v Greyhawk N. Am., LLC, 39 AD3d 494, 495 [2d Dept 2007]; Vento v City of New York, 25 AD3d 329, 330 [1st Dept 2006]; Dayanim v Unis, 171 AD2d 579 [1st Dept 1991]; Midborough Acupuncture, P.C. v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 2006 NY Slip Op 51879 [App. Term, 2d & 11th Jud Dists])

The affiant does not need to be an employee of the original creditor. She is an employee of Plantiff and had knowledge of Plantiff's records.

(People v Barrett, 14 AD3d 369 [1st Dept 2005]; see also Washington Mut. Bank v Phillip, 2010 NY Slip Op 52034 [sup Ct, Kings County]).

Upon information and belie, as Plantiff has reived numerous verbatim motion thoughout the atate, Defandant printed this motion off the internet.So what your honor, do we need to make this matter a constitutional argument?

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.