Motion to Appear (UPDATE on Pg.2) Could someone please tell me what's going on. I've gone to court twice regarding a credit card debt that was paid in 2002. This case seems to be going in circles. First I had a summons to appear, then a motion. Right after the motion, I received a letter requesting $75 for an appointment with 3 attorneys for an evaluation. I didn't show because I have proof that I paid this credit card, and didn't have $75 anyway. Then I receive another court appearance for a motion. Again, I stated that this bill had been paid and what evidence I had. Of course, the other side said it's not paid. Today, I receive a call stating that the judge has again ordered me to go to an evaluation. I've tried calling the court, but they all must be on a break! Any idea what's going on? Is this normal?
Requested and received VOD, but it wasn't complete. So I sent a second request and never heard from the collection agency again. Then, last year it started all over with a new company, and now we're in court. I've never seen the attorney whose name appears on all the court papers, it's always somebody different. From what I understand, the attorney on the paperwork is out of Ohio, but has a license to practice in MI and the attorneys I've seen in court do a lot of work for him. The call that came this morning stated that the judge has ordered this evaluation. This sounds strange because he didn't mention it yesterday while I was in court, and why would it be set up so quickly (tomorrow at 10AM).
Requesting a VOD after suit has been filed is simply ignorant. In fact, it is absolutely dumb. Even if the debtor demands validation of the debt he seldom gets it. If the debtor demands validation and proper validation is not provided the debtor may have grounds to file suit in federal court for overshadowing or possibly for providing false and misleading information to a consumer. On the other hand, failure of the plaintiff to abide by the law is not a proper defense to a lawsuit.
have you sent this new agency paperwork showing that it was paid, and do you have proof you sent it and they received it? ...does the letter have the oc or ca on it showing paid in full or settled?
acutally its not dumb, the debtor has the right to file a vod/request for proof along with an answer, if the plaintiff isnt able to produce the lawsuit will be dismissed w/ prej.
VOD was requested prior to suit. This case is just strange. I called the CA to get the fax # of the attorney so I could send him proof of payment (statement from my bank showing payment was wired). The guy at the CA said it wasn't necessary because the bill wasn't paid!! I informed him that the judge stated that all info was to be forwarded to the attorney so he finally gave me the fax #. I felt that something wasn't right, so I called back and got a different person. She stated that she was aware of this case and the fax # given was to the CA and all info would be sent to the attorney.
May I suggest that you do not go to any such "evaluation" without being accompanied by both an attorney and a court reporter. The "evaluation" is or wil turn into a discovery and they will rip you to shreds. I guarantee that you are not prepared to go into any "evaluations" or discovery proceeding alone and survive the process. Apparently you don't even know what this evaluation is or what it will consist of so if that is true then how do you expect to keep yourself out of legal hot water if you go alone? I don't even know what an "evaluation" process consists of because even though I have many years of dealing with various court processes I've never heard of such a thing as "evaluation" which is why I tend to think that it is actually nothing more than another name for discovery. In the first place a defendant should never let any type of discovery to take place in the offices of the plaintiff's attorney. The defendant should demand that it be conducted in some neutral place such as a meeting room in a public library close to the offices of the plaintiff's attorney. The defendant will have to pay for that which will probably either be free or maybe cost about $25.00
statement from your bank showing a wire may or may not prove the account was paid...who was it paid to? was it for a settlement or for the full balance? did you receive a paid in full letter or a settled in full letter after making that wire?
You're absolutely right Cap1, I have no idea what's going on. The CA already has a copy of everything I have so I don't know why I need to pay $75 to have an evaluation. I forgot to mention that the attorney offered a settlement yesterday prior to court. My response was "why, THIS BILL HAS BEEN PAID"! Also, the first attorney who appeared in court showed me a payment but stated it was applied to another account number. That's strange as I only had one credit card with these people (Wachovia/First Bank/Bank One, etc). I asked if I could have a copy of this paper and he stated I would receive a copy when both sides have to prove their side. I received paperwork, but not this particular piece of paper. I keep telling these people it was paid it 2002, but all the statements they keep sending me are from 2003??? Thanks for the advice.
It is dumb because a vod is not a legal demand that the plaintiff prove up his claim. It is the same thing in net effect but it is not called a vod. It can be done as a separate motion but that is not a vod. Neither is it appropriate for an affirmative defense. Thinking that a judge will be dismiss if the plaintiff does not prove up his case is legally correct but in practice it is often not requisite for the court to grant judgment. Plaintiffs in civil actions are not required to prove their case beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt as is the case in criminal matters. They only have to prove their case with a preponderance of the evidence and that usually isn't much.
That's all well and good, but please tell us what collection agency will provide all the information you outline above? I say not one will do that. This is why debtors should never agree to pay using check by phone or pay by credit card. The only acceptable method is to pay using a certified bank cashier's check. Yes, I am aware that a certified bank cashier's check is nothing more than a glorified money order but it does provide a better means of proof in that a carbon copy of the check accompanies the check itself and it can be traced years later through the company that the check is actually payable through. The bank merely issues the check and sends the money to the company that actually does the paying. When the check is cashed it is not returned to the issuing bank for payment. If anyone should doubt that then check the routing numbers on the check the bank issues and you will find that they are not the routing numbers of the bank you bought the check from. Now you all know exactly why one should demand the full name, address and phone number of the caller when they call you and keep on demanding it until you get it. Don't let the conversation proceed until you do get it. Also ask the debt collector if they are recording the conversation and if they say they are or might be then tell them that you are sure they won't mind that you are recording the conversation for compliance purposes. Often they will immediately hang up once you make that statement. Sometimes they won't mind at all.
While I can't give you legal advice because I'm not an attorney and I would be ashamed to admit it if I were, I think that if I were in your shoes I would want to file some motions with the court objecting to the evaluation until such time as some clarification were provided as to exactly what "evaluation" is and what it will consist of in your particular case. I would want some limitation as to what questions can be asked at the hearing. Now then, let me make it perfectly clear that while I make the statements above I have no idea whether that would be a permissible or even a fruitful thing to do. Before I did any of that I would do enough research to find out exactly what this court's rules of procedure say an evaluation is, what authority the court uses to demand attendance and what is likely to happen at such a hearing. It all boils down to doing your homework even if you are represented by an attorney. I've only seen one yet that actually did a good job of repesenting his client and that was the attorney who represented my wife in the auto accident hearing I have spoken about in an earlier post.
every agency i have worked for provides that letter all you have to do is either ask for it after 30 days of making the pymt...a few of the agencies have tasks scheduled 30 days after the final payment to go in an run receipt letters on all those accounts...not every agency is shady as you make them out to be
i still disagree..i've seen several lawsuits done the exact same way in court and in arbitration...if the debtor files that and can prove he has done prior to the filing of this lawsuit..the judge should have some concerns and questions that will need to be answered.
Because the court says you have to???? That is likely to be never. For them anyway. Maybe that is what an evaluation hearing is for? Or what it should be made to produce instead of what they want it to produce?
I'm not sure if this helps, but I have an Order for Case Evaluation under MCR 2.403, general civil case. Appears that I need to go. I'm going to call to find out what actually happens during this meeting.
Well, at least we agree on something which is The only real point I am trying to make with this "disagreement" with you is that a vod letter is not the proper way to go about forcing the plaintiff to prove his case.
Why do you want to call? No need for that when the following link which I got by putting the search phrase MCR 2.403 into Google and came up with the following link http://www.icle.org/shared/asp/mcr_display.asp?lib=repositories&book=mcr&chap=02&rule=2.403 which seems to give us a pretty clear description of what a case evaluation is and several ways in which you may be able to fight going to the thing. Instinct, not experience tells me you probably don't want to go to it and pay $75 to get asked a great deal of questions the answers to which are not likely to produce desirable results from your point of view.
