Scc - default judgement prevention

[statictransport]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CALIFORNIA - I am being sued in SCC by a used car company. They sold me a car with a auto loan when I was homeless. In order to obtain the loan, I was instructed by the sales associate and his supervisor to switch my residence/mailing address from the PO Box I was receiving mail to the prior apartment I had lived. By misrepresenting myself on the auto loan application it was approved.

They also requested $100 cash and a postdated check for $1400. A few weeks after obtaining the vehicle the sales associate asked if he could cash the check. I told him I was still homeless, lost my job, and there were no funds in the account. A few weeks later he called again with the same inquiry and I told him the situation had not changed. The sales associate told me to keep making car payments and he would get back with me. He eventually tried to cash the check and it bounced.

After five months with no job and no home, I left the state and dropped the car off at the used car lot. Currently I live in another state. I own a different used car valued between $250 -1500, have limited funds in the bank, am disabled (barely able to pay for medical care), unemployed, and am currently not able to work. Is there anything I could do to get the case dismissed? The court date is next week and I do not expect to attend. Can they and would they seize my car? Can they seize my bank account or garnish wages if I find employment? Would filing bankruptcy protect the car, bank, and prevent the used car company from garnishing wages?

Sincerely,

Student

 

[CourtClerk]

Nothing you have said would absolve you of paying for a debt that you WILLINGLY got yourself into. If you knew all this wrong was going on.... why did YOU proceed? Greed? Well... you've got to pay for it.

You may want to thank your lucky stars they didn't turn that check into the District Attorney and the only thing they're doing is suing you.

Nevertheless, no you can't get the case dismissed. If you don't appear, they will receive a default judgment against you. That judgment is good for 10 years, then renewable for another 10 years...

and if you have money in the bank, that'll be the first thing they come after.

 

[latigo]

You may want to thank your lucky stars they didn't turn that check into the District Attorney and the only thing they're doing is suing you.

With all due respect, the vagaries of the cosmos have nothing to do with the maker of the post-dated check avoiding criminal prosecution.

There is a total absence of any criminal intent to defraud on the part of the OP, which is the essence of all penal laws pertaining to the issuance of an insufficient check.

And although it is not clear where the transaction occurred, California’s “bad check” laws serve as a typical example:

California Penal Code Section 476 .

"(a) Any person who for himself or as the agent or representative of another or as an officer of a corporation, willfully, with intent to defraud, makes or draws or utters or delivers any check, or draft or order upon any bank or depositary, or person, or firm, or corporation, for the payment of money, knowing at the time of that making, drawing, uttering, or delivering that the maker or drawer or the corporation has not sufficient funds in, or credit with the bank or depositary, or person, or firm, or corporation, for the payment of that check, draft, or order and all other checks, drafts, or orders upon funds then outstanding, in full upon its presentation, although no express representation is made with reference thereto, is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison. "

 

[tranquility]

The OP:

In order to obtain the loan, I was instructed by the sales associate and his supervisor to switch my residence/mailing address from the PO Box I was receiving mail to the prior apartment I had lived. By misrepresenting myself on the auto loan application it was approved.

Obtained a vehicle on credit through intentionally misrepresenting his facts and gave a postdated check with the condition of:

I told him I was still homeless, lost my job, and there were no funds in the account.

While I don't know for sure, I suspect the DA under these facts would not have to do a lot of heavy lifting to find intent.