stipulation from lawyer PLEASE read

Discussion in 'Credit Talk' started by ohnostuck, Nov 14, 2001.

  1. ohnostuck

    ohnostuck Well-Known Member

    This is what I got from the lawyer today, please review and let me know if this is what I want. Looks good to me, but I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV.

    It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between both parties herto and their respective counsel, that the judgment dated October **,****, be set aside and this action dismissed, with prejudice, as to both the defendants ******* L. ****** and ****** C. ******, without costs to any party.

    It is herby ordered that the judgment entererd in this matter on October **,19**, is herby set aside and this action dismissed, with prejudice, as both the Defendants ****** ***** and ***** *****, without costs to any party.


    __________________

    District court judge
     
  2. Nave

    Nave Well-Known Member

    I think that is good...from what I understand, with predjudice means it can not come before the court again. And dismissed is dismissed. Right?

    Any lawyers or legal eagles around?

    -Peace, Dave
     
  3. MT

    MT Well-Known Member

    Nave, you are correct

    with predjudice means that it cannot be filed again.
    without predjudice means that it can be filed again.

    I checked with my roommate, the attorney.
     
  4. ohnostuck

    ohnostuck Well-Known Member

    Thanks Dave, I thought so too, but everyone said be careful so I thought that I would get everyones opinion before I signed on the line :) I KNEW I rocked!



    Heather
     
  5. Erica

    Erica Well-Known Member

    With Prejudice is a good notation to have on any court document. nave is correct.
     
  6. ohnostuck

    ohnostuck Well-Known Member

    It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between both parties herto and their respective counsel, that the judgment dated October **,****, be set aside and this action dismissed, with prejudice



    Set aside.....That is the only part that confuses me.

    (Erica- what a beautiful couple! Love your dress!)
     
  7. Erica

    Erica Well-Known Member

    Ok, You were "convicted" right? SO the conviction was set aside, meaning that you are still convicted but there is enough evidence to unconvict you. The with prejudice means that they can't Unconvict you in a new "trial" so-to-speak.

    Is that clear? I may have confused you more, but I hope not.

    (thanks, it was the first one I tried on! I loved it too, too bad it was a rental :( )
     
  8. ohnostuck

    ohnostuck Well-Known Member

    Erica,

    Yeah, you did still confuse me, but hey I am a blond! I think I get it though. Asd long as it stays off all the credit reports I could care less. And WHO CARES if it was rented, I only wore mine once after the wedding, and that was on Holloween!
     
  9. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Reads like a motion to vacate.
     
  10. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Erica and Supershawn!! Thanks! That was great seeing your wedding pix!! So much fun to put faces with names, especially such a joyous occasion!

    Ummm was that Elvis in the second pic???

    teehee
     
  11. GEORGE

    GEORGE Well-Known Member

    DID ELVIS LOSE HIS DONUT SHOP JOB???
     
  12. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    hm, put up another thread and title it "lawyer's opinion needed" or something like that. Yjrn post you same question there soyou can make sure it is a motion to vacate. I am pretty sure it is - the wording is so similar to mine, just yours doesn't say the word "vacate."

    Once you get the final decree from the court, fax a copy of it to CRA's and zap!! the judgment's gone!!
     
  13. Nave

    Nave Well-Known Member

    ---from Breeze---
    Yjrn post you same question there soyou can make sure it is a motion to vacate.
    -------------------

    Breeze, I didn't know you spoke sweedish LOL

    -Peace, Dave
     
  14. bbauer

    bbauer Banned

    With prejudice as to both defendants.
    This means that the defendants cannot refile the case or make any further moves regarding the issue.

    It does not mean that the plaintiff cannot file complaint against the defendants for any one of several causes that may exist.

    If it was me, I'd go after them for denial of due process of law, filing false and frivolous lawsuits or whatever might be applicable. I don't know what you actually could sue them for, but it should not be all that difficult to find something to chase them down and hang around their necks.
     
  15. Erica

    Erica Well-Known Member

    YES that is Elvis! Young Elvis!
     
  16. breeze

    breeze Well-Known Member

    Me either. Touch typing no good, hehe.

     

Share This Page