What are the odds that the defendant(s) will come to court? I'm trying to figure out if this is worth it? Has anyone had any experience taking their paid creditors to court after disputing a few times with the CRA's and not getting positive results? After contacting the OC's a few times and not getting any proof of latenesses and the CRA's verifying everytime, I think going to court is the next sensible thing to do. My feeling on this is what do they have to gain if they show up for the hearing being that I'm suing for injunctive relief and they are already paid? If I'm wasting my time betting that they won't show up let me know.
You just never can tell. Do a search of Quixote and LisaMc and read about their problems and how creditors fought them. Also, www.creditcourt.com has Mommy2cats {aka as Holly on that site} and her problems with student loans. There are a lot of creditors that don't care about cost if they believe they are right. And, as has been pointed out, if they win they may well sue you for abuse of process.
I think the odds are that they will. In order to preserve their rights, they have to answer. Even if they don't appear the first time, it wouldn't be unusual for them to have it adjourned until a time convenient for them to appear...and often times the judge will give them another opportunity to show up, providing they have filed an answer. I personally don't think this is a very good idea. I think you might end up getting burned on this one. L
Remember you are going after companies with legal departments......don't do it unless you have a solid case and you know the case well and feel comfortable proffering your case before a judge who might not know anything about credit laws. I had an attorney (now a Superior Court Judge) tell me once that when filing a lawsuit that you sometimes have better odds in Reno or Las Vegas! It has proved good advice over the years....we may be passionate about our situations but we have to make sure our cases are solid and can survive the test. NV Bone Doc True health comes from within
Interesting. Why Reno or Las Vegas? It's funny because I thinking of filing out of the state of New York, like in California or something. I'm thinking that they might be more liberal.
What I meant is you are always taking a chance in court, like you do in Reno or Las Vegas gambling on 21 or the slots. NV Bone Doc
Why does it work like that in their favor but not ours? If we did not show up no evidence is needed we just get a default judment. I say this because when I went to court the week before last with a friend, as the judge was calling roll (or whatever you call it) if the defendant was not there, the judge never looked at ANYTHING just entered a default judgment. So why would WE have to prove any differently if they did not show up?
tnobles, The key here is getting a continuance as well as responding to the lawsuit. When the Court Clerk calls the docket, you don't know if the defendant failed to even respond to the lawsuit or, just didn't show. Usually, most small claims court will grant a continunance if requested a few days ahead of the trial date. Actually, I'm a bit surprised that it was an automatic default. Most states will require the party that appears to present some minimal evidence to support their case. Sounds like you got a hardassed judge in that court.
Not really. They still have to submit evidence to prove their claim. JUst because you do not show up does not mean they automatically win. They still have to prove to the judge's satisfaction the debt is owed. Its a pretty easy burden no matter who you are (creditor or consumer) when getting a default.
If that were true, then why did this judge issue over 100 default judments in less than an hour? Let me give you an idea of what happened Judge: "scumbag vs joe blow in the amount of xxx" Scumbag: "Here your honor" Jo blow: no answer because was not there Judge looks at clerk says 'default judgment entered in the amount of xxxx pg# docket# The judge did this on over 100 cases, she DID NOT ONCE LOOK AT ANYTHING! As a matter of fact the scumbag never even had to say anything other than "HERE". Therefore NO evidence was entered. So why should it be any different if I were to sue scumbag and scumbag did not show up? Now keep in mind I understand each court is different, but if you are telling me that scumbags could win this easily because I/you did not show up, IT HAD BETTER NOT BE ANY DIFFERENT IF I SUE THEM!
that should be grounds for a reversal. I woulf file for a Motion for New Trial or appeal. I would think every state would make them prove a prima facie case.
in my small claims case against a cra, I had to present my evidence to get the default judgment. it was not automatic just because they did not show! if these cases were for evictions or something, the judge may have had copies of evidence along with claim, that would give him ground to grant default judgement.
Well it did not happen to me, I just went to court with a friend and that is what the 100+ other people that were not there got. But if I filed against a ca and sat there and watched the judge hand out a s**tload of default judgments to consumers for not being there and then the judge told me that I had to prove MY case even if the ca did not show up, boy I would make it a point to try and have that judge removed from the bench. But let me tell you what this judge DID do to my friend, she denied the charges that the ca said she owed b/c she never recieved the bill, the judge basically said tough s**t b/c the ca had statements with her address on it, but yet a couple of cases before hers the SAME ca was suing a cop over a medical bill that was from the SAME hospital that was suing my friend. You know what the judge did for this cop? She continued the case until the hospital could properly prove this bill. SO why did she not do this for my friend? (Obviously I am not expecting you to answer that question) Anyway, my friend got a judgment for using the same defense that the COP did i.e.; Insurance should have paid, therefore there should be no bill, plus never recieved anything, so why would they have thought otherwise. But yet THE COP got a continuance to work it out with the ins. company and the ca. That's crap!!
I agree thats crap. Was she a small claims judge. My experience with small claims judges are that they are morons. Whats worse in some states there is no appeal for small claims.
Like I said before, I know every court is different, that is just what happened here. Some WERE evictions but just a very small handful. Most were ca's suing. BTW Diva, did Exp pay you? Did you have to make them pay or did they just send you a check? How much did you win? I am just curious. I did not know you won by default.
You're right tnobles. It is crap. I've seen the same thing happen in criminal court as well. There are different standards for the rich and the poor. Gib
Yep, it was small claims. But the judge did SOME things right, if there was a case where someone did not show up and the service was shown to someone other than the defendant, the judge continued the case to make sure the summons was not served to a minor. And she did recuse herself from 2 cases b/c she went to high school with the defendants.
http://www.new-york-accident-lawyer.net/legal_state.html has a lot of NY state law kinks and none of them mention the restriction of both parties being in NYC.for small claims Are you sure about this >>
