freeindeed Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt
Correct, if filed timely, the action tolls the SoL. There is a specific time in the Fl. Rules of Civ. Pr. for service in an action. If the party is not served within that time the action fails of its own. I think filing any type of motion would constitute an appearance and be detrimental to your position. However, monitor the local papers in case he attempts to serve you by publication.
Mutt
|
Thanks Mutt,
I would clarify my post to state that you should file a motion to dismiss once served. If after you are served you do not answer a default judgment will be rendered and it will be too late. Another way you can see if process of service has been completed by publication is check the court web site.
|
Thanks you guys! I am monitoring the court web site now.
Three CCC are actually trying to serve me now!!! I already knew about the
one that was trying to start their case all over again after I forced them into a corner and he dismissed rather than respond to my motion. But two
others that
I didn't even know about yet have been trying to serve me! One has been trying since the beginning of 2005 - even before I got the known plaintiff to dismiss! What is really interesting is that the one I knew about has already returned the summons "not served on (name omitted)" after two months of concentrated effort, but one of the others has been trying to serve me for over a year and the summons has not been returned unserved. What gives with
that??? I presume that if they considered it served by publication, I would read that in the court record - thanks for that tip, freeindeed.
Now I've got to delve into the Florida Rules of Civil Proceedure again - I seem to recall that civil suits for an amount greater than a certain dollar amount could
not be served via publication (good thing I'm such an
extreme deadbeat - hahahahahah). I will check into that and I will let you all know what I find. A lot of us here do seem to be in Florida.
As far as making a motion to dismiss - the way I got the first plaintiff to give up and back out of the game that first time was to file two different Motion for More Definite Statements. The first one because the CC atty did not sign the docs as atty for the plaintiff - therefore it was not clear if he was representing the CCC or had purchased the debt. Then, after he responded that he was actually representing the CCC, I filed another Motion for More Definite Statement because he did not allege jurisdiction as required in the Fla RCV, and I pointed out that he did not allege jurisdiction because his client already knew that an arbitration award had been entered against them, and they did not have jurisdiction. They backed out and dismissed. Had they alleged jurisdiction, I would have filed a motion to strike their claim of jurisdiction because they knew they did not have jurisdiction. There is a lot of FLA case law supporting arbitration - including cases about the SOL within which the losing party has to challenge the award or waive their right to challenge it. I've found nothing in the FLA RCP indicating that an arbitration award HAS to be confirmed. In fact, there is much case law indicating that the whole purpose of arbitration is to keep the case out of the courts. If the CCC's objected to my new agreement to arbitrate that they subscribed to when they detached and cashed my consideration check they had an opportunity to raise that objection timely - after they received Notice of Arbitration and prior to the entry of the award, and they failed to do so. No fraud or collusion has yet been proven on the part of the arbiters or the arbitration company, despite some CCC's vendetta against them.
