Summons for Judgement dismissed for no proof

[justlost]

What is the name of your state? NY received a summons at my front door and in the mail for a credit card that my husband did not reconize. We appeared in court & requested proof so 3 mths was set aside for discovery. We returned to court and the lawyer for creditor did not show up. There was no form of communication from the attorney to us or the court. The judge dismissed I believe with an opening of if they can bring valid proof it can be revisited. Now we have a another attorney office contacting us 3mths after this has occur asking for us to settle out of court before they take action. I did explained what happen a few mths ago & they are willing to take the proof. Here's the issue we never received a letter from the court to dismiss case. I went a few weeks after the decision back to the court house to ask about proof they advise they do not give these types of letters. ???

I am going back to the court to advise the of recent events to see if they can give me something to prove. Wasn't they suppose to give this when the case was dismissed at first? Not sure What I can do if they turn me down again for proof. What is the name of your state?

[JETX]

Originally Posted by justlost

Not sure What I can do if they turn me down again for proof.

You don't need the proof of the dismissal in the first case, that one is already dead and has NO effect on the new lawsuit. Unless the first dismissal was 'with prejudice', the new suit can go forward.

[justlost]

You don't need the proof of the dismissal in the first case, that one is already dead and has NO effect on the new lawsuit. Unless the first dismissal was 'with prejudice', the new suit can go forward.

___________
Not sure what you mean. If we were summoned already for this debt & there they could not provide proof of the debt. How is it valid to have another collector /attorney try to do the same thing? I did not explain this before. This new attorney that has contacted us via phone and has not taken steps to take us to court. With a letter to follow per them was sent today.

[Texas Pooh]

justlost,

there are two ways to dismiss a lawsuit. the plaintiff can dismiss "without prejudice", which basically means that the plaintiff is simply electing not to go forward with the suit at that particular time. This often happens when the plaintiff realizes he/she/it does not have enough proof to proceed. when a case is dismissed "without prejudice", the plaintiff may re-file the litigation in the future at any time before the statute of limitations expires.

When a plaintiff dismisses "with prejudice" or the court grants a motion to dismiss "with prejudice", it means that the lawsuit can not be refiled, as the case is dismissed on the merits.

From what you describe, it is likely that your case was dismissed "without prejudice". A call to the court clerk (or a visit to the courthouse, and pulling the file) will show a motion or an order that dismissed the matter. That will contain the "prejudice" language.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Texas Pooh

That will contain the "prejudice" language.

And of course, that is NOT true. Most small claims judgments do NOT show whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It is far more common that the notation will be added ONLY if a judgment is dismissed WITH prejudiced.

[Chien]

JETX – the implied criticism of TP’s post is both gratuitous and speculative.

There is nothing in the original post to say that the OP’s case was in Small Claims or, for that matter, the amount in contention. Your rejoinder addresses the relative procedural informality of Small Claims court. NY does permit attorneys in SC and caps jurisdiction at $3,000. Speculation is not inappropriate, when facts are omitted, but it may be wrong and, in this instance, was not even the central issue. You, yourself, qualified it as expressing what was “more common”.

On the other hand, TP’s post provided an accurate explanation of the distinction between dismissal with and without prejudice (and even one reason why one or the other might occur) in any case in any court, when the OP expressed continuing uncertainty after your original reply.

Moreover, TP went to pains to avoid unequivocal statements and made it clear that the post expressed what was “likely”, predicated on the information the OP had offered.

In a short time, TP has demonstrated an ability and willingness to consistently make informed, useful, accurate and moderated contributions to this forum. Differences of opinion can and should be articulated for the elucidation of all, but let’s not undermine each other.

[Texas Pooh]

Thanks, Chien, for reminding all of us that the intent of these boards is to provide help and clarification, and to answer the questions that are actually asked by posters.

Reasonable minds can certainly disagree about things (seems llike you have pointed out a few things to me ! when I've reached a conclusion too quickly) in a reasonable way, without making absolute statements about the quality/nature of advice given by another poster.

In this matter, I was concerned that justlost still had some questions after JETX's post about why s/he was still being pursued for this debt when s/he thought the matter had been resolved by a court once already. The answer may have seemed obvious to JETX or other seasoned posters, and thus JETX's answer included some brevity and/or shorthand, but it was obviously the first time the poster had dealt with the issue and a bit more clarification was required.

[JETX]

Isn't this cute... the idiot who gets caught giving INCORRECT advise, then turns around and compliments the person who bitched about the 'tone' of my response to his incorrect post!!
I can hear the sucking sound all the way over here.

[justlost]

Originally Posted by JETX

You don't need the proof of the dismissal in the first case, that one is already dead and has NO effect on the new lawsuit. Unless the first dismissal was 'with prejudice', the new suit can go forward.

Tks the input found out attorney showed after we left & withdrew case. So this collector is just trying to collect for the acct. I still do not know of the acct or charges in question. We had an acct from same bank but the info I have shows a different acct #. Plus I have the ltr showing acct was settle. I guess I need to get debt validation for the acct in question. We re-fi in 2005 & settled all accts. This acct is over $7000 I would have not ignored this amt all others was taken care of already. I'm confused where this info came from as well.