maelyn5 Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 Hi all! I posted yesterday about my case getting dismissed without prejudice at the pretrial conference. I wanted to give everyone a brief overview of what happened. So here goes..... 1. I was served with a summons and complaint. 2. I answered (with the help of posters here) within 21 days and I also attached an affidavit denying the debt which I had notarized. 3. I received notice from the court of a pretrial conference hearing. Also included in that notice was a "civil pretrial statement." I was required to fill this out and file a copy with the court and opposing counsel within 5 days of the pretrial conference. This was quite a detailed form to fill out and it requested the following: -A summary of the case - A list of legal defenses citing case law and statutes -Case law and statutes I would use to support denial of the claim -Findings of fact -Exhibit lists -Witness Lists - Miscellaneous (estimated trail time, case evaluation etc) Anyhow, I filled out the forms and submitted them 5 days prior as instructed. I was very surprised when I received the pretrial statement from the Plaintiff's attorney. The attorney didn't even use the form provided by the court but rather they just briefly summarized their original summons and complaint. I'll follow with more...next post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maelyn5 Posted September 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 maelyn5 Part 2........... I went to the pretrial conference. I walked into the court room and about 5 or 6 attorneys turned to look at me.....I was wondering which one was there for me ..I sat for about 10 minutes and an attorney came over and asked me "are you so and so?" I replied "yes" he askedif we could go to the hall and "talk" I said "okay" we went to a conference room and we exchanged pleasantries < Then he said "we can see by the papers you sent to us.....that this is not your debt.......I replied "no, it is not!' He then said..."that's what we thought...we are ready to dismiss this case today." I asked "will you dismiss it with prejudice?' he replied "no" I thought for a minute ---the prospect of having my life back was sooooootempting.....so I said "okay"......he produced a dismissal doc for me to sign...I read it over....signed it....and we went back into the courtroom to await our case to be called. We were called....introduced ourselves to the judge...and she asked if we'd reached an agreement? the attorney said we had agreed to dismiss.....the judge asked "with or without prejudice? the attorney replied "with' The judge asked me if I knew what that meant...I said "yes"...she said "that means they can sue you again tomorrow." I said "yes I know" She asked "are you good with that?" I said "yes" She ordered it then and said I could wait for a copy.Being this was my "first rodeo" I know now that I probably made some huge mistake here...but I was scared and quite frankly didn't know my other options too well. But I was granted some breathing room at least....I am happy with my "mini victory"...as a mom with 6 kids...to whom I've neglected for far too long over this I took the easy way out. In all honesty though...I have yet to learn so much I guess I bought me a few more months of creditinfocenters' wonderful academy A big THANK YOU to all members..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huey Pilot Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 Any kind of a dismissal is a win. Congratulations!!! More then likely this will not come back at you but it's possible. Knowing what to do and how to handle things will help tremendously if it does and there is a next time. It's just to bad more people don't fight. Best, HP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy E Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 Congrats!! A win is a win! I don't know the Michigan 'rules,' but wonder what would have happened had you "pushed it" with the attorney? If I read your post correctly, since he said, ".....by the papers submitted, this is not your debt." For brighter members of the forum, what would have happened had she said demanded the dismissal be WITH prejudice? When the case was called, she could have told the judge that the attorney just now admitted the debt was not hers, and therefore, WITH prejudice is the proper kind of dismissal. Right? Wrong? Either way, congrats again! -J 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoCares1000 Posted September 5, 2013 Report Share Posted September 5, 2013 I say congrats. At least they now know you will fight.As for with or without, yes they can refile but the probably will not. There are too many who will roll over that it is not worth their time or bother to deal with someone who will stand up to them.The win here is also that the SOL clock keeps ticking as if this never happened. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 maelyn5 Part 2........... the judge asked "with or without prejudice? the attorney replied "with' The judge asked me if I knew what that meant Is that a type error or did they dismiss "with" prejudice. Either way, you did very well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Congratulations! A Win is a Win! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy E Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Is that a type error or did they dismiss "with" prejudice. Either way, you did very well. I took it as a 'typo' because the OP said the judge told her, "....they can file suit again, etc." 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 I took it as a 'typo' because the OC said the judge told her, "....they can file suit again, etc." I guess I was just "skim" reading again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maelyn5 Posted September 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Yep.....definitely a "typo".....sorry about that I absolutely LOVE the emoticons on this site! Can you tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy E Posted September 6, 2013 Report Share Posted September 6, 2013 Yep.....definitely a "typo".....sorry about that I absolutely LOVE the emoticons on this site! Can you tell? I wasn't really sure if you liked the emoticons or not - hard to tell Seriously though, I know you were in court, at the moment, perhaps not knowing WHAT would happen. Like I said, a WIN is a WIN is a WIN, congrats!! I was just interested in feedback from other members of the forum regarding what, in their opinion, would have happened if you DECLINED to accept a 'without' prejudice -- simply telling the judge that opposing counsel agreed and informed you 'minutes ago' that the alleged debt is not yours -- meaning, it's over, through, finished, done, and ask his or her honor to dismiss the case WITH prejudice. In other words, if you had mentioned plaintiff's own admission, how could ANY judge dismiss WITHOUT prejudice?? You don't owe this alleged debt, the plaintiff agrees, judge dismisses WITH prejudice. Just scouting for opinions on it. Of course, the plaintiff could have claimed not to have told you that, which is VERY possible -- in which case a 'without' prejudice would be in order. Either way, you WON! -J 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maelyn5 Posted September 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 Thank you Jimmy! You know, it never even occurred to me to "stand my ground" and try for dismissal with prejudice....once you said that ...it made perfect sense....wish you were there in my corner THAT DAY!!! Very insightful!!! Thank you for the congrats...I just wish the small victory that I received..was that easy for EVERYONE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 In other words, if you had mentioned plaintiff's own admission, how could ANY judge dismiss WITHOUT prejudice?? The plaintiff is the one dismissing and they have their preference of with or without prejudice, the judge does not have much choice at this stage (having not gone to trial) because he / she has not SEEN any evidence to weigh, and therefore cannot be prejudiced against plaintiff's case. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy E Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 The plaintiff is the one dismissing and they have their preference of with or without prejudice, the judge does not have much choice at this stage (having not gone to trial) because he / she has not SEEN any evidence to weigh, and therefore cannot be prejudiced against plaintiff's case. THAT'S the kind of clear reasoning I was looking for. Got it! What had me a bit puzzled though was the judge seemed to infer the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the 'without' prejudice because the OP said (about the judge) ""She asked "are you good with that?" Re-read post #2. One must admit the judge at least inferred the defendant could challenge it. Hmmm. But, what you say certainly makes sense, Anon Amos. Thanks. -J 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Amos Posted September 7, 2013 Report Share Posted September 7, 2013 THAT'S the kind of clear reasoning I was looking for. Got it! What had me a bit puzzled though was the judge seemed to infer the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the 'without' prejudice because the OP said (about the judge) ""She asked "are you good with that?" Re-read post #2. ***I agree. The OP probably did have an opportunity to attempt a challenge of the without prejudice.**** One must admit the judge at least inferred the defendant could challenge it. Hmmm. ***I agree. It was probably a good judge, I think the judge was trying to throw the OP a bone (so to speak). You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink. I am not bagging on the OP here or taking from her victory, I think she did a great job.*** But, what you say certainly makes sense, Anon Amos. Thanks. *** When the judge hinted that she might have a problem with the without prejudice, the OP could have said that she indeed had a problem with it; and then presented her argument. This would cause the judge to ask the plaintiff for their response. Once the plaintiff responds with any type of evidence or testimony, then the judge could "weigh" that evidence. Then, after the judge has weighed what is typically passed off as evidence by a jdb; the judge would have the ability to be prejudiced and could then dismiss accordingly. And again I am not critiquing or bagging on the OP, I think she did great and will probably never hear from them again.*** -J 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts