Could some kind soul please explain this to me?
My SO is a contractor.
Last year he did extensive work on a club downtown
The first bill was paid with a bad check, and we finally had to take the guy to court for the remainder fo the substantial bill.
We arrived at court, the guy’s attorney wanted to settle. Ok, we say.
The first thing out of the attorney’s mouth is that his client doesn’t want to take this to trail, because he knows he owes the money.
We make payment arrangements.
Everyone is happy, case closed, right?
Wrong.
The guy makes payments, spodadically.
Then not at all, regardless of the number of times we contact him.
We file an interogatory which the guy does not answer - going back to the courthouse on Monday to file against this and have him arrested for contempt.
We then file a garnishment against his bank account.
Then we find out that he closed that account and opened another account under a different name.
Back to the courthouse to file an amended garnishment.
Today - we get a letter to appear in court in 2 weeks for a “Traverse of Defendant”.
So, what is this guy trying to pull now? Is he now saying that he doesn’t owe anything, even though he freely admitted it before?
Is this just a stalling procedure? It just pisses me off!
I came up with these on Google. I think you guessed right.
Now comes the defendant in the above-styled case and traverses the plaintiff’s affidavit by saying the same is untrue or legally insufficient.
The affidavit which makes this verification, is required to state:
"(i) as to any allegations of fact which the pleading traverses by a denial - that the deponent believes that the allegations are untrue;
(ii) as to any allegations of fact which the pleading traverses by statements of non-admission - that, having made reasonable enquiries, the deponent does not know that the allegations are true;
(iii) as to any allegations of fact in the pleading - that the deponent believes that the allegations are true."
I had googled it first, but still could not make out for certain what it was. I did call the court, and asked them to explain it to me in plain English.
Basically, the defendant is saying that the amount he is being garnished for is incorrect.
Fine, I wonder if he remembered to add in the court costs and finance chanrges I was awarded by the court? I also wonder if I could tack on extra for all the trips I have had to make to the courthouse on his behalf, and for him being a general jackass.
“Yes, sir, your honor, I am suing for $1000 because the defendant is a lying jackass.”
Thanks, you guys.