Response to a Demand Letter?

[superme]

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

I received a demand letter which I believe is a precursor to a (baseless) small claims suit. My first instinct was to ignore the letter as it will fall on deaf ears and the parties are entrenched in our positions. But My google-fu lends me to believe that this letter may be admissible, or at least read by the Judge or Court Clerk, as part of evidence that the plaintiff attempted alternative dispute resolution. The letter has many of the facts biases in the plaintiff's favor and is full of emotion.

My question is: is it in my best interests to respond to the letter, with a dispassionate recounting of the facts (as I see them) not for the plaintiff but for the court to read?

ps It is an interesting case for which I am having trouble finding precedent or presiding law. Stay tuned for more questions....

 

[Proserpina]

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

I received a demand letter which I believe is a precursor to a (baseless) small claims suit. My first instinct was to ignore the letter as it will fall on deaf ears and the parties are entrenched in our positions. But My google-fu lends me to believe that this letter may be admissible, or at least read by the Judge or Court Clerk, as part of evidence that the plaintiff attempted alternative dispute resolution. The letter has many of the facts biases in the plaintiff's favor and is full of emotion.

My question is: is it in my best interests to respond to the letter, with a dispassionate recounting of the facts (as I see them) not for the plaintiff but for the court to read?

ps It is an interesting case for which I am having trouble finding precedent or presiding law. Stay tuned for more questions....

You need to respond - and that means including the plaintiff.

 

[superme]

You need to respond - and that means including the plaintiff.

Would you mind explaining why? Note, this person has not filed suit yet, this is just a (notarized) letter which is demanding I should pay and "keep it out of the courts."

I feel that this person is trying to get me to pay for something I don't think I am responsible for. I think there is a 50% chance they are trying to scare me into paying and 50% chance they will eventually go to small claims court where I feel like I have a good chance of prevailing.

I honestly would not reply to them except in the event that the response will end up being read by the judge before the suit.

 

[quincy]

Would you mind explaining why? Note, this person has not filed suit yet, this is just a (notarized) letter which is demanding I should pay and "keep it out of the courts."

I feel that this person is trying to get me to pay for something I don't think I am responsible for. I think there is a 50% chance they are trying to scare me into paying and 50% chance they will eventually go to small claims court where I feel like I have a good chance of prevailing.

I honestly would not reply to them except in the event that the response will end up being read by the judge before the suit.

If you can answer these questions without compromising your situation, can you tell us what the basis is for the contemplated suit and what the demand is that is being made?

Demand letters are often a good way to introduce a settlement and keep the legal matter out of court (reducing costs for both parties). There is also no way to predict if a court will find in your favor. A settlement gives you greater control over the results.

While demand letters are often "starting points" for a negotiated settlement, there is nothing that says you HAVE to negotiate a settlement. And you may not want to, if you feel strongly that you will prevail in any small claims action.

But, not responding to the demand letter can also work to your detriment and to the other party's benefit - they can show the court that they tried to work with you and you refused.

So it is a bit of a crap shoot.

Do you have the ability to seek out legal help in your area, for a review of the letter and a review of the facts? An attorney can better advise you once all facts can be personally examined.

 

[LdiJ]

If you can answer these questions without compromising your situation, can you tell us what the basis is for the contemplated suit and what the demand is that is being made?

Demand letters are often a good way to introduce a settlement and keep the legal matter out of court (reducing costs for both parties). There is also no way to predict if a court will find in your favor. A settlement gives you greater control over the results.

While demand letters are often "starting points" for a negotiated settlement, there is nothing that says you HAVE to negotiate a settlement. And you may not want to, if you feel strongly that you will prevail in any small claims action.

But, not responding to the demand letter can also work to your detriment and to the other party's benefit - they can show the court that they tried to work with you and you refused.

So it is a bit of a crap shoot.

Do you have the ability to seek out legal help in your area, for a review of the letter and a review of the facts? An attorney can better advise you once all facts can be personally examined.

I agree that getting an opinion on the specifics of the case would be a good idea. You may feel that you can easily prevail in court if you are sued, but you are biased. Not responding to a demand letter is only dangerous if the specifics of your case indicate that you might lose in small claims court. If your case is a slam dunk, ignoring the letter is absolutely fine. If your case if 50/50 but your response to any suit would be convincing enough that the judge would understand why you didn't respond, then its also fine. However, if your case is more than 50% in the favor of the other party, then not responding might be a bad idea.

Basically, it all depends on the specifics. Since you haven't shared the specifics, no one here can given you any valid advice other than what has already been said.

 

[superme]

I was walking my dogs, on leash when approached by a small dog off leash. (I assume he escaped from the yard since the owners were nowhere to be found.) The small dog came up to my dog and a fight ensued. I split up the dogs and a their dog ran off. My dog was bleeding badly so we walked home and took my dog to the ER. The other dogs owners followed the trail of blood to my house. Their demand letter claims my dogs attacked their dog on their property and I should pay their vet bills.
- I was the only person at the scene.
- We were legal, on leash, and in the (small, residential) street.

In person I told them that while I think they are 100% at fault, I was willing to chalk it up to an unfortunate incident. They pay theirs, I'll pay mine; however if they sue, I will certainly counter. They are asking me to pay their vet bills which I think is unacceptable.

 

[quincy]

I was walking my dogs, on leash when approached by a small dog off leash. (I assume he escaped from the yard since the owners were nowhere to be found.) The small dog came up to my dog and a fight ensued. I split up the dogs and a their dog ran off. My dog was bleeding badly so we walked home and took my dog to the ER. The other dogs owners followed the trail of blood to my house. Their demand letter claims my dogs attacked their dog on their property and I should pay their vet bills.
- I was the only person at the scene.
- We were legal, on leash, and in the (small, residential) street.

In person I told them that while I think they are 100% at fault, I was willing to chalk it up to an unfortunate incident. They pay theirs, I'll pay mine; however if they sue, I will certainly counter. They are asking me to pay their vet bills which I think is unacceptable.

Based strictly on what you have written here, I agree with you that they are 100% at fault. I do not see that you would be held liable for their veterinarian costs but, on the contrary, they could be held responsible for your veterinarian expenses.

The owner of an unleashed dog that is not under the owner's immediate control gets very little protection for their pet under the law, should the pet be injured or injure another.

It sounds like you can ignore the demand letter they sent you, and possibly send a demand letter of your own.

Again, this is based on what you have written here. Additional facts could potentially change my assessment.

 

[BL]

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

I received a demand letter which I believe is a precursor to a (baseless) small claims suit. My first instinct was to ignore the letter as it will fall on deaf ears and the parties are entrenched in our positions. But My google-fu lends me to believe that this letter may be admissible, or at least read by the Judge or Court Clerk, as part of evidence that the plaintiff attempted alternative dispute resolution. The letter has many of the facts biases in the plaintiff's favor and is full of emotion.

My question is: is it in my best interests to respond to the letter, with a dispassionate recounting of the facts (as I see them) not for the plaintiff but for the court to read?

ps It is an interesting case for which I am having trouble finding precedent or presiding law. Stay tuned for more questions....

Try calling around your area's Offices , County , City , Animal Control , etc. for the leash law.

Sounds like they are thinking if the say their dog was on their property they are protected and you are at fault.

Find the law to cite.

Either write a demand letter yourself for your damages including a copy of the law , or if you want nothing else do not respond at all.

If they sue , counter sue.

 

[superme]

Thanks all. I kinda want to respond (mostly out of indignation) and I also kinda want to go to court. In my situation, the money isn't life changing but the experience of going to court would be something I find very interesting. I also have the work flexibility to take off as much time as I want to deal with this. (The biggest hit would be if a judgement hit my credit score, although I don't see myself buying a house for a long time. I have plenty of resources I can tap including my company's lawyer, along with acquaintances and a lawyer who works with the rescue I got my dogs at. I've taken the last 2 weeks off for the holidays but will probably start hitting up my network next week.

Here's another twist for you guys that is curious for me: [Names being used are fictional but the story is real.]

I have a somewhat ethnic legal name, let's say it is Saddam Jones. I was born and raised in the US and for... convenience I have gone by Tom since I was a kid. I never legally changed my name and my house, car, and all legal docs have Saddam Jones on them, but pretty much everyone knows me as Tom. This goes for work, friends, neighbors, etc. Many know of my legal name, but everyone thinks of me as Tom. This includes the letter I received from the presumptive plaintiff.

- If someone tries to serve "Tom Jones" am I okay to say "Tom Jones doesn't live here" or play other games with the server? Or should I just accept.
- If Tom Jones is named, should I fight it and make the plaintiff re-file, or will it be treated as a "red-line" change?
- I certainly feel like I want a judge and not a "pro tem". Is this justified?

Timeliness of this is obviously not important to me and making this more work for the plaintiff has its benefits too.

 

[LdiJ]

Thanks all. I kinda want to respond (mostly out of indignation) and I also kinda want to go to court. In my situation, the money isn't life changing but the experience of going to court would be something I find very interesting. I also have the work flexibility to take off as much time as I want to deal with this. (The biggest hit would be if a judgement hit my credit score, although I don't see myself buying a house for a long time. I have plenty of resources I can tap including my company's lawyer, along with acquaintances and a lawyer who works with the rescue I got my dogs at. I've taken the last 2 weeks off for the holidays but will probably start hitting up my network next week.

Here's another twist for you guys that is curious for me: [Names being used are fictional but the story is real.]

I have a somewhat ethnic legal name, let's say it is Saddam Jones. I was born and raised in the US and for... convenience I have gone by Tom since I was a kid. I never legally changed my name and my house, car, and all legal docs have Saddam Jones on them, but pretty much everyone knows me as Tom. This goes for work, friends, neighbors, etc. Many know of my legal name, but everyone thinks of me as Tom. This includes the letter I received from the presumptive plaintiff.

- If someone tries to serve "Tom Jones" am I okay to say "Tom Jones doesn't live here" or play other games with the server? Or should I just accept.
- If Tom Jones is named, should I fight it and make the plaintiff re-file, or will it be treated as a "red-line" change?
- I certainly feel like I want a judge and not a "pro tem". Is this justified?

Timeliness of this is obviously not important to me and making this more work for the plaintiff has its benefits too.

IF you get sued its going to be a small claims case...and you will get whoever hears small claims cases. No, it would be silly and counter productive to attempt to avoid service.