SQLguy

I Think I Just Won My Case. Need Help With Next Steps

Recommended Posts

@Anon Amos

No trial date set yet. I have a hearing tomorrow on my MTD and their motions for sanctions and to withdraw admissions.

OK, I remember now

I did send a request for production. They denied having bill of sale, terms of sale, forward flow agreement, and chain of custody documents.

So in other words they don't own the alleged debt.

Would it be worth it to take the docs I came across to the hearing tomorrow?

I wouldn't. They can't prove any assignment to it.

I have a feeling that good or bad, this ends tomorrow. I either get my MTD granted or they get their sanctions and default judgement.

OK now I'm lost again. They are motioning to get their response to your RFA withdrawn or not deemed as admitted, I don't see how you are in danger of going into default over that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are motioning to get their deemed admissions withdrawn. They also have a motion for sanctions because I did not provide the bank statements.(I didn't know the order had been granted and once I became aware I filed my MTD before they requested the sanctions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are motioning to get their deemed admissions withdrawn. They also have a motion for sanctions because I did not provide the bank statements.(I didn't know the order had been granted and once I became aware I filed my MTD before they requested the sanctions)

OK. There's a few cases like yours, even similar court dates, so it's easier to just ask again (instead of scrolling the post).

 

I assume they asked for the sanction in the form of a default ruling? Did you receive a court order, with the word "order" on it, signed by a judge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. They asked for a default. I didn't receive the signed order initially. But they sent me a copy of it in a "second request ". I had been preparing my MTD and filed it a day after I got their letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They then asked for the sanctions. I opposed them and argued among other things that I had reasonable belief that my MTD would be granted and that I should not have to turn over that private information until my MTD is decided

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it says "order" and is signed by the judge? Just to confirm (there has been people who THOUGHT they had an order, but actually did not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would argue your points you mentioned about receiving the order and why you didn't produce. Courts can give some leeway to pro se. You could bring the bank records with you (maybe it was your understanding that that was what you were supposed to do). You could request that only the judge see them. That would at least keep you from default. You can't really argue with  a court order too much.

Then fight the rest of the case. Try to focus the attention to the fact that they have no BOS and assignment etc. The plaintiff has not done a thing to demonstrate standing to sue. If plaintiff lacks standing to sue then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.

If it does go bad. as you thought it might, make sure you tell the judge that you want these objection on the record. If you get a default ruling you will appeal it.

I think you will be OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something very wrong with the system if a JDB can sue someone with this lack of anything showing standing and still end up with a court order that forces you to turn over private bank records to them.  I cannot believe they got a judge to sign off on that when they could not even produce a single document showing that they own this account in the first place....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frosted1 just went through the same thing yesterday @SQLguy. The judge allowed them 10 days to turn over the bank information so the Plaintiff could subpoena the records and denied the default. So I have a feeling your case will end up in the same boat at least as far as the bank records aspect is concerned. I think your MTD argument is pretty solid, so that may or may not pan out. 

 

@kraftykrab It all depends on what the rules of civil procedure say on the matter. If they've provided the minimum required documentation then they're good to go at least until it can be challenged at trial. There's an appellant case that BV80 posted in Frosted1's thread that will blow your mind as far as what's considered appropriate evidence in Utah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frosted1 just went through the same thing yesterday @SQLguy. The judge allowed them 10 days to turn over the bank information so the Plaintiff could subpoena the records and denied the default. So I have a feeling your case will end up in the same boat at least as far as the bank records aspect is concerned. I think your MTD argument is pretty solid, so that may or may not pan out. 

That is good to hear! I'm so stressed right now and just trying to calm myself before heading out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is good to hear! I'm so stressed right now and just trying to calm myself before heading out.

 

You'll be fine. Go get em!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kraftykrab

 

 

There is something very wrong with the system if a JDB can sue someone with this lack of anything showing standing and still end up with a court order that forces you to turn over private bank records to them.  I cannot believe they got a judge to sign off on that when they could not even produce a single document showing that they own this account in the first place....

 

The reason they can do so is because they have alleged their standing.   While standing is necessary to sue in the first place, most courts don't require that particular documentation to be included with the complaint.  Most states don't require much in the way of documentation to be attached to a complaint.  Nor does one have to prove their case when they file suit.

 

Many plaintiff's file suit without all the necessary evidence to prove a claim.  For instance, if you were to file suit against a JDB for TCPA violations, you may not have proof at the time of the filing that the JDB uses an autodialer.  That's a critical aspect of a TCPA claim.  You would ALLEGE they use an autodialer.  In discovery you would request certain records or admissions that prove they have that capability and employed it to contact you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got back from my hearing. Things didn't go as well as I had hoped but also did not go as bad as I feared. The judge let them withdraw their admissions but didn't give them the default because of the statements. I have until next Friday to have the statements in their hands. The judge wants this to be decided at trial. 

 

One interesting thing is that when I got there I was approached by someone who said they were from legal aid and have attorneys working Ppro Bono for anyone that wants to have one look at their case and get advice, or even represent them before the judge. I accepted the help. The attorney seemed pretty impressed and thought I had a decent chance of getting it dismissed. I got a lot of insight from him on the judge that handled the hearing and found out that this judge is old school in that he allows a lot of leeway with the rules and prefers that issues be decided at trial.  After the hearing he said that he thought that my hearsay argument is good but gave me a 50/50 chance at winning if this goes to trial. (Not suprising really). He also gave me some good insight into the opposing counsel as he used to work with her. 

 

The question I have to decided on now is do I want to continue fighting or should I just settle. Part of me wants to fight this to the end, but the other part of me just wants to be done. He seemed to think that I could get them down to half of the original amount. Looking at the way some of the other Utah cases on this board have gone I'm leaning towards settling but not fully convinced yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SQLguy

 

Whether or not you settle is your decision only.   There's a number of factors to consider.

 

1.  The judge

 

2.  The precedential rulings by your higher courts.

 

3.  Your garnishment laws.

 

4.  You state law regarding property liens.

 

Those are just a few of the considerations.  I'd schedule a consultation with Legal Aid before making a decision. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kraftykrab

 

 

 

 

 

Many plaintiff's file suit without all the necessary evidence to prove a claim. 

That's true, and acceptable. However proving a CLAIM and proving STANDING to legally sue are two different things.

 

Standing must first be addressed before any court can hear a case, because if plaintiff lacks standing; then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime in the case (even after it has been adjudicated). If the court lacks jurisdiction then it does not have the power to enforce any power of subpoena.

 

Few people argue it this way, many may not be capable of it, and a lot of people don't even believe it. I think a lot of that stems from the fact that it is almost impossible to mention the Constitution or jurisdiction here without getting attacked. 

 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And obviously having the money to settle, since the discounted price will likely be a lump sum payment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true, and acceptable. However proving a CLAIM and proving STANDING to legally sue are two different things.

 

Standing must first be addressed before any court can hear a case, because if plaintiff lacks standing; then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime in the case (even after it has been adjudicated). If the court lacks jurisdiction then it does not have the power to enforce any power of subpoena.

 

Few people argue it this way, many may not be capable of it, and a lot of people don't even believe it. I think a lot of that stems from the fact that it is almost impossible to mention the Constitution or jurisdiction here without getting attacked. 

 

Just my opinion.

 

The problem is that these are pro level arguments when many of us (myself included) are just amateurs. Standing can certainly be challenged up front if the Plaintiff fails to meet the requirements of the RCP. Otherwise it's not an argument that many judges will allow. Doesn't mean you can't try of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think talking to the lawyer was a good idea, especially if he worked with them. I would want to find out if you are collection proof. Depending on your rules and what you make, it's possible they can't collect from you anyway.

 

I think you can drive them away and force them to dismiss if you keep enough pressure on them. But that takes time and effort. So the only reason to settle would to be if you just can't go thru with it and want it over now (in my opinion). Sometimes however settling doesn't end it, and down the road there are more problems, as you can't trust a bottom feeder, 

 

I think you could do much better than 50% however, assuming they actually honored the agreement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And obviously having the money to settle, since the discounted price will likely be a lump sum payment.

True. That's the ONLY way to settle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

 

That's true, and acceptable. However proving a CLAIM and proving STANDING to legally sue are two different things.

 

Standing must first be addressed before any court can hear a case, because if plaintiff lacks standing; then the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place. Jurisdiction can be challenged at anytime in the case (even after it has been adjudicated). If the court lacks jurisdiction then it does not have the power to enforce any power of subpoena.

 

Few people argue it this way, many may not be capable of it, and a lot of people don't even believe it. I think a lot of that stems from the fact that it is almost impossible to mention the Constitution or jurisdiction here without getting attacked. 

 

Just my opinion.

 

I agree with you, but the operative word is "proof".  At the outset of a case, that depends upon one's court rules and what must be attached to a complaint.

 

My point is that standing does not have to be proven at the time of filing.  In most courts, unless one's rules state otherwise, a plaintiff merely has to allege standing.  If a defendant has proof that the plaintiff has no standing, he files a motion to dismiss along with the proof.  Otherwise, the case continues.

 

Yes, the issue of standing can be raised at any time (in NY you must include it as an affirmative defense), but right now in this particular case, standing is not the main issue.  It will be argued in a MSJ and/or at trial.

 

Regarding the Constitution, I didn't say that it doesn't apply to all courts.  I specifically posted that the 14th Amendment applies the Constitution to the states.  In case I didn't explain it properly, a Constitutional argument doesn't apply if the Constitution is not being violated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that these are pro level arguments when many of us (myself included) are just amateurs. Standing can certainly be challenged up front if the Plaintiff fails to meet the requirements of the RCP. Otherwise it's not an argument that many judges will allow. Doesn't mean you can't try of course.

Correct. It's advanced, and requires power of persuasion.

 

It's another reason why it's good if your trial is a year from the complaint, and not to rush it. It can be learned, but it's not for everyone, probably not even for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SQLguy

 

Whether or not you settle is your decision only.   There's a number of factors to consider.

 

1.  The judge

 

2.  The precedential rulings by your higher courts.

 

3.  Your garnishment laws.

 

4.  You state law regarding property liens.

 

Those are just a few of the considerations.  I'd schedule a consultation with Legal Aid before making a decision. 

 

5.  In Utah, there is definitely a "good ol' Boy" thing going on in the Court System. With Judges and attorneys covering each other's rears. Just one of the reasons there is so little Utah Law to cite. Makes it especially hard for the Pro Se. If you can get some help from an attorney it might be wise to utilize it. Just don't let him take the easy was out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True. That's the ONLY way to settle.

 

 

 

And obviously having the money to settle, since the discounted price will likely be a lump sum payment.

 

 

True. That's the ONLY way to settle.

 

And obviously having the money to settle, since the discounted price will likely be a lump sum payment.

 

The attorney thought it was likely that I could get them to agree to payments. He told me that the attorney handling my case is fairly young and has a soft spot for sob stories. He has seen her push back with her client when those have come into play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

 

 

I agree with you, but the operative word is "proof".  At the outset of a case, that depends upon one's court rules and what must be attached to a complaint.

 

I believe in the majority of cases in Utah, nothing is attached to the complaint and is typically provided in Disclosures. For this reason, the judge will not see proof of standing in many cases until trial or MSJ. I think the majority of cases that are challenged by the Defendant in Utah never make it to trial and end in the MSJ stage.  My suggestion is to hit the standing issue hard with proper preparation. This of course starts with discovery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.