Appearance for Examination

[jalebkid]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi, i really need help regarding this matter as i am a full time student who is stuck in possibly the worst case ever.I sold a car to someone and the total price was $3500. I was sued for $3400 in repairs, buyer keeps the car. Basically based on receipts provided by plaintiff(no name on receipts linked to plaintiff). The buyer made "repairs" exactly the next day after purchasing the vehicle. I find this hard to believe because my car was in perfect condition and did not need any repairs. He could have called me and i would have gave his money back. Two months later after purchasing it, plaintiff sues me...wins the case(i dont get how that it is ethical) and then is allowed to keep the car. Now, i had someone serve me who is related to plaintiff again by coming into my backyard(is this legal?). They now served me with order to appear for examination. What can i do at this point? I believe if i dont show up, i will have a warrant. I dont have any assets but my own car which i use for school.

Can i counter-sue for my car back? How does this work?

Do i have to show up for examination?

Can i agree to payment plan at time of examination or before through mail?

I am really lost with this issue as i am a young student who sold their car to buy a motorcycle for school but got into this mess. The plantiff is an ex-police officer that is making stories up to take my away from me, i cant believe the plaintiff will win in this case. Please someone help me, i have to go for examination in two weeks.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

Hi, i really need help regarding this matter as i am a full time student who is stuck in possibly the worst case ever.I sold a car to someone and the total price was $3500. I was sued for $3400 in repairs, buyer keeps the car. Basically based on receipts provided by plaintiff(no name on receipts linked to plaintiff). The buyer made "repairs" exactly the next day after purchasing the vehicle. I find this hard to believe because my car was in perfect condition and did not need any repairs. He could have called me and i would have gave his money back. Two months later after purchasing it, plaintiff sues me...wins the case(i dont get how that it is ethical) and then is allowed to keep the car. Now, i had someone serve me who is related to plaintiff again by coming into my backyard(is this legal?). They now served me with order to appear for examination. What can i do at this point? I believe if i dont show up, i will have a warrant. I dont have any assets but my own car which i use for school.

Can i counter-sue for my car back? How does this work?

Do i have to show up for examination?

Can i agree to payment plan at time of examination or before through mail?

I am really lost with this issue as i am a young student who sold their car to buy a motorcycle for school but got into this mess. The plantiff is an ex-police officer that is making stories up to take my away from me, i cant believe the plaintiff will win in this case. Please someone help me, i have to go for examination in two weeks.

I realize it isn't always easy to express one's thoughts in writing, but did you read the above rambling before you posted it?

You begin by telling us that the cop won his lawsuit weeks/months ago - that you have been summoned to appear before a referee for a post judgment, judgment debtor's examination and then come up with this totally illogical statement:

“I can’t believe the plaintiff will win this case.”

Unfortunately the fat lady has already sung and the lawsuit is over and done with, including your right to "counterclaim" or assert any then available claims or defenses in another court. You had one shot to make your case. Unfortunately you don’t get another.

And I use the word “unfortunately” advisedly because the small claims court really shafted you. Big time!

Which, I have a hunch came about because you didn’t show up to contest the cop’s phony lawsuit. He had to have lied through his teeth and been bedding down with the judge to come out with any more than a judgment for the purchase conditioned upon his return of the vehicle in like condition.

But you had better show up for the debtor’s examination!

Because if you don’t, the court can issue a warrant to have you arrested, held in contempt of court, and ordered to pay the judgment creditor’s attorney fees! (See: California Code of Civil Sections 708.110 –205 and specifically Section 708.140(a) covering sanctions for disobedience.)

I truly wish you had some recourse against the cop that obviously set you up, but we'd need to make some new laws.

 

[Zigner]

And I use the word “unfortunately” advisedly because the small claims court really shafted you. Big time!

The court did not such thing. The court either heard the case on its merits and determined that the plaintiff had a valid claim, or the OP failed to show up. Either way, the court didn't shaft our OP.

 

[latigo]

The court did not such thing. The court either heard the case on its merits and determined that the plaintiff had a valid claim, or the OP failed to show up. Either way, the court didn't shaft our OP.

Well, we apparently disagree. Me? I think the cop purposely set the kid up. Plus the court disregarded applicable law.

It’s just too coincidental to not believe that arranging to have the repair work started so closely following the purchase was not planned before the sale went down.

According to your reasoning a court would have been justified in compensating the cop for the expense incurred in repairing a newly purchased used car no matter how extensive and costly.

You apparently think the judge was justified. So what limit would you personally place upon the court’s authority in this area of damages? If you place any, then you are hedging on your own argument.
___________________________

Whether the cop’s cause of action was founded upon breach of contract or even tortuous deceit on the part of seller, his measure of damages would be limited to recovering his actual loss. Rescission of contract – restoring the parties to the position they were in immediately prior to the transaction.

However, if you have any authority holding that a buyer –claiming either a breach of contract or the seller’s material misrepresent as to the condition of used goods - can both affirm the sale, keep the goods and recover damages in the form of the cost of repairing the goods to his satisfaction - as was obviously done here - I would be pleased to read them.

With all due respect, as always.

 

[Zigner]

Well, we apparently disagree. Me? I think the cop purposely set the kid up. Plus the court disregarded applicable law.

It’s just too coincidental to not believe that arranging to have the repair work started so closely following the purchase was not planned before the sale went down.

According to your reasoning a court would have been justified in compensating the cop for the expense incurred in repairing a newly purchased used car no matter how extensive and costly.

You apparently think the judge was justified. So what limit would you personally place upon the court’s authority in this area of damages? If you place any, then you are hedging on your own argument.
___________________________

Whether the cop’s cause of action was founded upon breach of contract or even tortuous deceit on the part of seller, his measure of damages would be limited to recovering his actual loss. Rescission of contract – restoring the parties to the position they were in immediately prior to the transaction.

However, if you have any authority holding that a buyer –claiming either a breach of contract or the seller’s material misrepresent as to the condition of used goods - can both affirm the sale, keep the goods and recover damages in the form of the cost of repairing the goods to his satisfaction - as was obviously done here - I would be pleased to read them.

With all due respect, as always.

What you are implying is that the court is in league with the plaintiff in this matter. I am simply stating that this is not true. The plaintiff obviously presented evidence that we are not privy to.

 

[latigo]

What you are implying is that the court is in league with the plaintiff in this matter. I am simply stating that this is not true. The plaintiff obviously presented evidence that we are not privy to.

If a farmer agrees to sell a blind man a horse, but instead delivers him a mule, the blind man can rescind the sale by returning the mule and getting his money back.

However, he cannot keep the mule and sue the farmer for the price of a horse.

But that is precisely what the small claims court did. It allowed the cop to keep the mule and reimbursed him for the cost of turning it into a horse.

 

[Proseguru]

Could this be a smog test issue? OP really gives no reason why he lost .. he's just amazed...

Amazed or not, right or not, the court has ruled (no one ever said a judge doesn't make mistakes) ...

The OP should go to the examination & plead poor ...

 

[jalebkid]

I have valid proof of receipt with my information on it, i got the car checked up before i sold it. Second, i also sold it to him with a smog certificate

 

[latigo]

I have valid proof of receipt with my information on it, i got the car checked up before i sold it. Second, i also sold it to him with a smog certificate

So what?

What does it take to make you understand that the "proving" part of this lawsuit - the part where you had the opportunity to plead and prove your defenses, to contest the cop's trumped up case -- your right to appeal the small claim court's impartial, idiotic decision - is over, past history and done with?!

Do you have a steel plate in your head or do you just keep it buried in a sandbox.

You've heard the YB expression "It ain't over 'til it’s over"? Well unfortunately for you it is OVER!

What's left is for the crooked cop to find out how to collect his judgment. And a judgment debtor’s examination is designed for that purpose. To ferret out non exempt assets.

In the meantime the jerk is probably looking for another opportunity so that he and his buddy mechanic can con some other hapless sap.

Spend $3400 to repair a $3500 car? And the judge that supposedly “ruled on the merits” was justified in sanctioning the con? BS! Double BS!

I don't know why the cop didn't go for the bundle, like a new motor and trasmission- 10 or 12 grand? After all he had the judge eating out of his hand.

And five will get you ten that the cop didnt show up in court wearing civies. Undoubtedly a newly pressed cop's uniform. You know, like a "law suit".

 

[Zigner]

So what?

What does it take to make you understand that the "proving" part of this lawsuit - the part where you had the opportunity to plead and prove your defenses, to contest the cop's trumped up case -- your right to appeal the small claim court's impartial, idiotic decision - is over, past history and done with?!

Do you have a steel plate in your head or do you just keep it buried in a sandbox.

You've heard the YB expression "It ain't over 'til it’s over"? Well unfortunately for you it is OVER!

What's left is for the crooked cop to find out how to collect his judgment. And a judgment debtor’s examination is designed for that purpose. To ferret out non exempt assets.

In the meantime the jerk is probably looking for another opportunity so that he and his buddy mechanic can con some other hapless sap.

Spend $3400 to repair a $3500 car? And the judge that supposedly “ruled on the merits” was justified in sanctioning the con? BS! Double BS!

I don't know why the cop didn't go for the bundle, like a new motor and trasmission- 10 or 12 grand? After all he had the judge eating out of his hand.

And five will get you ten that the cop didnt show up in court wearing civies. Undoubtedly a newly pressed cop's uniform. You know, like a "law suit".

I must apologize. I wasn't aware that you are so intimately familiar with this case.

 

[LdiJ]

I must apologize. I wasn't aware that you are so intimately familiar with this case.

On come one Zig...this one reeks. Who spends 3400.00 to fix a 3500.00 used car that they bought the day before? Now, its logical that someone would NOT fix the car, sue to get their money back and return the car, but not this one. It reeks.

 

[jalebkid]

So my question is since i cannot do anything about it anymore. Can i file SC-220 Request to make payments before i go in to examination? I cannot give up any assets or pay amount in full. I can make payments. Is this something that i can do before going to appear for examination or am i supposed to bring up the SC-220 during hearing.

 

[Zigner]

On come one Zig...this one reeks. Who spends 3400.00 to fix a 3500.00 used car that they bought the day before? Now, its logical that someone would NOT fix the car, sue to get their money back and return the car, but not this one. It reeks.

Somebody who wants what they paid for. Sometimes, it's the principal that matters.

 

[tranquility]

I believe the process you need to file the form is listed on the back of the form or on attached pages. You need a financial statement too.

Somebody who wants what they paid for. Sometimes, it's the principal that matters.

A person spends $3,500 on a car and the next day he takes it to a mechanic and spends ANOTHER $3,400 to get it fixed. Without a doofus as a defendant (in the legal sense), the best possible result of this is the guy is going to have the car for $3,400. Of course, he's risking $3,400 for that $100 discount. I guess principles can be stupid.

 

[Zigner]

Without a doofus as a defendant (in the legal sense)...

And...here we are