Is this still a legal Summons/Complaint?

[the_spell_man]

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

I found out I am being sued in Small Claims court, however was not served the Summons/Complaint 5 days prior to the court date. I faxed in - the day before the court date - that I had not been served a Summons/Complaint. On the actual court date, the judge adjourned to a later date & informed the Plaintiff that she "will need to file an Amended Summons & Complaint for that new court date." I was now served a Summons/Complaint as of last night, which appears to be the original Summons/Complaint, with merely the court date "whited out" & written over. Is this a legal document? It's been altered with white-out. Thanks for your help.. btw, I'm in Wisconsin.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Sounds correct. This is small claims, not rocket science.

 

[the_spell_man]

Sounds correct. This is small claims, not rocket science.

So then pretty much anyone could just white-out the court date, write in a new one, and it's still legal. Interesting.

 

[Zigner]

So then pretty much anyone could just white-out the court date, write in a new one, and it's still legal. Interesting.

That's not what happened here. There was no random "somebody" making changes to the document

 

[dcatz]

As described, it isn’t a proper Summons, but the more relevant questions may be 1) are you now prepared to mount your defense and 2) how many trips to court are you prepared to tolerate protracting the inevitable?
The purpose of a Summons is to give actual notice of a pending claim against you. The purpose of the Complaint is to give actual notice of the particulars of said claim, so that you can defend against it, if any defense there be. You have both, although original service was not sufficiently timely to give you the statutorily-allotted time to prepare.
Unless this matter is pending in an extraordinarily “laissez-faire” court (very doubtful, despite being Small Claims), the “amended Summons and Complaint” means just that and white-out doesn’t cut it. It's safer assume that this was the plaintiff’s shortcut. But assume that the docket shows that case 12345 was continued to X,Y, 2014 and the court gets a Proof of Service that you’ve now been timely served with the amended S&C. Unless you go again and contest the adequacy of the documents served, the is a risk that the POS is accepted and you suffer a default judgment. So you go again and you protest. And the court agrees that there has been a procedural gaffe but also notes that you’ve now had notice. In the interest of efficiency, it gives you the opportunity to have the hearing that date. You protest, so the court, noting that both parties are before the court, orders that jurisdiction has attached and orders the hearing for a date in the immediately foreseeable future, and you’re going back a third time. You’re going to do this. The defective Summons won’t get the case dismissed. The SC court will protect it’s calendar from a never-ending-story.

 

[the_spell_man]

You’re going to do this. The defective Summons won’t get the case dismissed. The SC court will protect it’s calendar from a never-ending-story.

thanks dcatz, that's exactly what I needed to hear. The only 'inevitable' in this case is going to be the plaintiff losing not only her case, but losing the countersuit as well as a probable felony criminal charge of blackmail. This person is the worst I've ever dealt with - think "Fatal Attraction" combined with "Misery" & you'll get a glimpse of what's occurring here. Anyways, I appreciate the time you've all taken to respond. I simply did not want to waste a very long trip to that courthouse, for something that the judge will see is a complete waste of time.