Recommended Posts

 

 

@h8spleadingpaper I know you were just here, did they have all this evidence with you?

 

Hi, John.

 

Yes, it sounds like the same documents that they sent me in my case (with the possible exception of the "affidavit of claim and certification of amount due of amount due" - not sure what this is).  I too was knocked off guard when I saw the stack of documents they sent and (I believe) that is the point.  What I realized after I calmed down was that it's human nature to be initially impressed by quantity; quality takes a bit more time and mental processing.  I think that JDBs have started sending stacks of docs in the hopes that it will either (1) scare the Defendant into settling or (2) persuade a judge that is not hearing the proper objections at Trial.  

 

I am curious to know what the "affidavit of claim and certification of amount due" is.  You might want to post a redacted copy so that some of the kindly folks here can take a look and give you a better idea of what it is and how to approach it.  Aside from that, Anon's advice above really is spot-on.  If you're going to fight, the key is to know the proper objections (it took me a long time to comprehend the truth of this).  Please feel free to take a look at the redacted versions of the docs I used in my case and use anything that might be helpful to you.  They may be found here:

 

http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/326248-portfolio-recovery-hunt-henriques-new/page-6

 

(on page 6, post #106 of the thread)

 

Good luck and feel free to ask any questions you might have.  I'll try to check back periodically over the next few days, in between doctor visits.   :-D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why you thought they wouldn't reply to your RFD, they pretty much always reply to those. I don't mean that as a criticism, just as a reminder that you shouldn't take anything for granted/expect things to play out a particular way.

 

As it is, the documents they sent you are pretty standard, I received the same objections and what sounds like the same stack of papers in my case. If you are getting close to trial, then you might want to move on from discovery and focus on trial prep.

 

Yes, you want to send them a CCP 96 request, I'd recommend you do that as soon as you enter the window for requesting that: "The request shall be served no more than 45 days or less than 30 days prior to the date first set for trial". Don't miss it.

 

Also, you mentioned the name Maria Marin, who in other threads has been attached to CCP 98 declarations, have you received a CCP 98 from them?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shellieh98

 

Right, so regardless of what they have on paper it's only a piece of paper until a witness from the original creditor authenticates it during live testimony. I guess I panicked and forgot about that. Thank you Shellieh!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@h8spleadingpaper Hey the certification of amount due is basically a document from the original creditor saying everything the plaintiff is saying. They have it signed with notary from the recovery adjuster at the bank.

 

Thanks for the input, I'll post a redacted version when I get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RyanEX

 

I've only received this response to RFP, which I didn't expect because they were getting close to the deadline. Maria Marin signed the verification for the RFP documents, just after the objections pages. I see nothing about a ccp98.

 

ok trial prep time it is, Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anon Amos

 

I should know that by now, thank you. Everything they sent just seemed way to thorough. I'm still figuring out what these documents are.

Maybe so, but not everyone can or will know it at this time, but if you are forced to learn it you are at a stage where you have time to do so.

Thorough doesn't necessarily mean admissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@John4600

 

Hey just a heads up and not to scare you but I just finished my case and it didn't go to good.

 

My case mirrors your almost to the "T" and was doing everything right. I was ready with my objections (for Trial) to the CCP and even attempted service on Maria. 

 

Well service went unsuccessful and was not at the location they said she was, but she ended up showing up to the trial. No big deal because I was still ready to object to the CCP, after all my objections Judge still alowed it in (I objected per 1271 Ev code Hearsay and that Maria wasnt qualified and so on) 

 

His words were, I (me) can ask her questions to see if she was qualified and he would determine the rest, after 5-10 minutes of her saying she knew nothing about the records the keeping, the storage or anything I objected again saying she was not qualified and CCP should be thrown out. Judge Denied and long story short ruled for H and H lol.... So now im appealing and citing several cases because this never should have happened, I also later found out that you dont get both a live witness and CCP98 one or the other. 

 

With all this said I am having a hard time believing that she was who she said she was. Why fly across the US for $1567.87 doesn't make sense. I would like to talk to you more if possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anthony81 sorry to hear abt the outcome of your case. I wonder if a witness can be asked to show state issue ids to prove their real identity. Which county do you reside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anthony81

 

Terrible outcome, sorry you pulled a bad judge. There have been few threads where Maria Marin, as the CCP 98 declarant, was successfully served out of a San Diego office. This is the first time I have heard of this person showing up at a trial.

 

If you haven't come across this thread yet, I'd suggest you give it a look, I'm sure it would be helpful: http://www.creditinfocenter.com/community/topic/322848-my-california-appeal-edit-i-won/

 

@easy619 also lost his trial because the judge allowed the testimony of an unqualified witness and, consequently, the hearsay evidence. He successfully appealed. The thread is pretty detailed and easy still checks in with the CIC every now and then.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear it, but it does go with the territory. If not, there would be no need for appellate courts.

 

I believe the need for court reporters at trial is increasing, and can help control a lot of this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 affidavit of sale by original creditor, affidavit of claim and certification of amount due of amount due,

 

Affidavits are inadmissible at trial CA Evidence Code 1200. The case to cite is Elkins v Superior Court

 

Documentary evidence at trial must pass all subdivisions of CA Evidence Code 1271.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anthony81 Sorry Anthony, You should definitely appeal. 

 

I wonder what the point was of having Maria Marin not be served, then appear at trial. I think the were trying to put you off guard. And it sounds like the judge had made up his mind before hearing the case. I guess it's no big deal to send this Maria all over California.

 

Does anyone know if that's legal to have service unsuccessful to the witness, then for her to show up? If she was going to show up they should've been able to serve. Otherwise it's just plain deceptive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RyanEX

 

Thanks for the link. I remember reading this as it helped me in my steps and followed them too, Judge didn't care about the Target v Rocha and said it didn't apply to my case because she showed up. I agree with John4600 and Anon Amos, but no crying over spilled milk. Thanks for the help, and best of luck to you John4600 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you serve the subpoena at the lawyer's office, what you are really doing is notifying the lawyer that you want the witness to show up.  It is not effective service and you could probably not convince a judge to institute contempt proceedings for failure to appear.  However, the judge was correct in this case.  If the witness shows up to testify, there is really no argument you can muster against it (unless she wasn't named in the CCP 96 response).  The declaration, however, should not be admitted into evidence.  Her testimony is presented instead of the declaration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Anthony81 appeal based on witness qualifications and sufficiency of evidence. I sent you back a pm. If anyone else would ever like to discuss CA appeal stuff, just pm me and I get instant notification via email.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received the declaration of plaintiff in lieu. It looks almost identical to the response to RFP, what's the point of sending this again?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@shellieh98 

 

Yes, they gave the H&H office as the address to serve Maria Marin 20 days before trial.

 

If they are trying to get this admitted to evidence, wouldn't they be required to send me a court stamped copy? And what's the time frame for written objections?

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.