Is Refusal To Accept Certified Mail Fraud?

[DrDeth]

The US Tax Court & IRS has explicit procedures for “Mailed to last known address by certified mail”= “proof of delivery”. These have been modified of course, but have been in place for decades without an successful challenge as to their basis. The reason for this being is that they are actual law, codified in the Tax Code. Thus, it’s the law.

True, successful challenges have been made about the “last known address’ portion. But not about the basic part that the mailing is all the proof that is needed.

[doreen]

@Yarster

Naturally, he expected me to countersue him and would have refused a similar letter had I sent it to him. As such, the court recommended I hire a process server to get his signature, which are people who trick others into signing documents. Seth Rogan played this character in the movie ‘Knocked Up’. As such, while I cannot say how the legal system in the rest of the world, or even the other 49 states works, in California, I would say that getting a real signature for a lawsuit (even a crappy one for a few hundred dollars in Small Claims Court) is absolutely required and a judge won’t accept a “well you tried” apporach, unless you perhaps filmed the person refusing it while someone explained what was in the letter.

I can’t say anything about California, but I’ve served everything from subpoenas to orders of protection and never needed the person’s signature. I do however, have to complete a sworn affidavit regarding who I served the document to.My sworn statement or testimony is proof. (and BTW the process servers in movies generally trick the person into accepting the papers, not into signing anything)

[Saint_Cad]

@Yarster

I’m surprised everyone is so convinced that a judge considers an attempt to get a letter signed as opposed to actually getting it signed is acceptable. Here in California even for a small claims court action of a few hundred dollars, I was told I had to have proof of delivery.

In my case, the landlord had in the lease that all communication had to go through a private box and in Colorado SC Court there is a way to serve through certified mail. When the Judge continued the case because the landlord hadn’t been served (according to the Judge) I did some more research and found out some information by accident, it took a trip to the bankruptcy court to find his real address. Actually it was really helpful knowing he had been in bankruptcy for over 3 years because when his attorney realized they couldn’t count to 60 correctly, they offered a settlement and although we could have had the trial then and there and gotten about $5500, we realized that any judgement would be thrown on the pile with the rest of the debts and so we accepted the settlement with the condition that if we did not receive the check in 7 days then the default judgement would be for the full amount. We got the cashiers check the next day via FedEx .

But that raises the question. What if I couldn’t find his physical address. I would have had to pay a PI to find it and if well hidden is he effectively unsueable?

[Yarster]

I wonder about that issue myself. Employers of shady businesses (and even legit ones) have been known to have their employees sign offer letters that indicate the business is registered in the state/country of (somewhere very far away) and that any legal proceedings must be served in that place where the laws are very favorable to that business and not the employee. The employee goes into the job with the best of intentions but then finds he is unjustly terminated or treated poorly and suddenly finds that company has effectively made themselves ‘unsueable’ in the sense that the cost of bringing a lawsuit against them is astronomically expensive and biased against them based on the venue they agreed to as part of their employment contract.

California, thankfully, fights these kinds of actions because other companies have pulled these kinds of shenanigans for years when they open branch offices in new locations.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Choice of law provisions are generally only upheld when they are reasonable.