I already agreed to pay, can she sue ?

[Serious999]

Wow, wow, wow guys and gals, lets not get personal here. But thanks for the great discussion ... Both of you.
Veronica thanks for trying to help me and look from my stand point with understanding. You brought valuable defense points that I will definitely explore. JETX, thanks for logical info, alternative point of view and pointing to the weak spots in my defense.

Now, something that fell through unanswered - the title of the post.
I already agree to pay what is due (minus cash and her own expenses). Where is the logic to ask the court to make me pay something that I already have no problems with? Can't the "officials" see that, and don't even open the case or drop it?
Would it be better for me just deny any amount due and see what I can get from it?

 

[JETX]

"Where is the logic to ask the court to make me pay something that I already have no problems with?"
*** Logic has nothing to do with this. Though you are obviously willing to negotiate some of the issue, I don't suggest you do so without finalizing the entire issue. Why make part of the case for the 'opponent' in the event this is litigated.

"Can't the "officials" see that, and don't even open the case or drop it?"
*** That is not their 'function'. If a lawsuit is filed and you feel that it is without merit, you can file a motion for summary judgment stating your LEGAL facts. However, based on the details of your post, there appears to be a valid dispute (at least to me) that would preclude your motion.

"Would it be better for me just deny any amount due and see what I can get from it?"
*** See my above post. If you want to try to resolve this without litigation, you need to be very careful as to what (and how) you admit to any liability on your part.

People seem to forget that litigation is not 'friendly'. It is like a chess match.... you have to protect your position while trying to 'damage' theirs.

 

[Veronica01]

I second JETX on this one.

But only if the jurisdiction defense fails. If the court declines to accept jurisdiction, the case ends there. It becomes a resolution between you and her at your discretion.

 

[Veronica01]

VeryPoor: Your response is full of contradictions and convolutions of your own post. It is simply so ludicrous (and full of lies) that it simply isn't worth my time responding.
BTW, consider this as strike three!

Full of lies? Point them out.

 

[stephenk]

First, forget about jurisdiction and foreign registered cruise ships as part of your defense. You admit that you both agreed to split the costs before you even went on board the ship. That is when the agreement was formed. Just because the money was spent somewhere other than the U.S. has no bearing on the case.

Second, now that you have the credit card bill, look it over and come up with the figure you think is reasonable on what you owe.

Third, it looks like you have no defense regarding the agreement to pay your fair share of the bill. She has your emails and I dont think you want to lie to the court. So, you may want to try and work out an agreement before you go to court or wait until you get to court and provide your figures to the judge. the judge may go with your numbers or go with hers. If you come across as a reasonable person, the judge may lean toward your figure.

Good luck.

 

[Serious999]

Stephenk,
Right now she holds me responsible for the late payment she didn't do, she blames me for that of course. Plus with the interest that CC will accrue untill it paid in full along with the court and attorney fees she says she will encounter.
Can that be hold against me, because to me it sounds plain ridicules?

 

[Veronica01]

The agreement for one to pay on behalf of the other was made in the US but there was no agreement under which jurisdiction to resolve a disputed loan. This agreement is binding under the US jurisdiction with respect to one party to freely offer the loan to the other.

Paying on his behalf (or him on her behalf) is a loan transaction that took place in a foreign country, be it the boat or another land. The natural jurisdiction to resolve the disputed loan in this case is the place where the loan occurred: outside the US. This is a different situation from a credit card where the user agreed on the jurisdiction before the card was issued to him.

I did not say the judge is going to accept jurisdiction, I did not say he is not going to accept jurisdiction, but it is a valid defense.

I suggest to Serious to call her and tell her on the telephone that this is an off court settlement offer. If she does not accept the fair share, you are going to move to dismiss the case on jurisdiction ground. If she accepts then the case is settled without the court. She will have to withdraw her claim on the ground that the case was settled. If she doesn’t accept the offer, you still have the option to move to dismiss if you want to. I don’t see a penalty in this.

 

[JETX]

VeryWrongica: You are so full of IT that, I bet your eyes are brown!!
You have ZERO knowledge of the laws and your continual incorrect posts on this forum are doing nothing but causing problems for the writers.

Serious, please do NOT fall for the crap that VeryWrongica is providing. There is NO jurisdictional issue here!!

VeryWronica has NO legal experience and clearly no ability to understand when her continual errors are pointed out to her.

 

[Veronica01]

VeryWrongica: You are so full of IT that, I bet your eyes are brown!!
You have ZERO knowledge of the laws and your continual incorrect posts on this forum are doing nothing but causing problems for the writers.

Serious, please do NOT fall for the crap that VeryWrongica is providing. There is NO jurisdictional issue here!!

VeryWronica has NO legal experience and clearly no ability to understand when her continual errors are pointed out to her.

You haven't learned yet, have you?

I am not going to tell you what is my experience in law. Keep guessing. I am enjoying it. Keep hyper, go for it.

 

[JETX]

"I am not going to tell you what is my experience in law. Keep guessing. I am enjoying it."
*** Don't worry. I don't have to guess. Your ignorance is obvious in every post.

 

[stephenk]

Veronica, are you suggesting the matter be heard on the cruise ship? Or if the ship is of Libyan registry, that the matter now belongs in the Libyan courts?

Maybe Captain Stuebing can preside over the matter?

 

[JETX]

Moot point. Veronica is gone from the forum