Eviction: Contested Case

[Willlyjo]

You know, willyjo, oddly enough and in a weird sort of way, I'm almost sort of kinda fond of you, despite appearances. So I mean this absolutely in the kindest possible way when I tell you that you really, REALLY don't want to go where you're going.

You see, I know what CC does for a living, and where she does it, and who her employer is. I know that she has a very valid reason to know EXACTLY how this works, in a far more intimate manner than you have described your knowledge to be. So if you were to just back off and accept the fact that you really are wrong this time, no one would think less of you.

But if you keep insisting that she doesn't know what she's talking about - well, that's just not going to look good. Y'know?

Look CBG...I didn't exactly say CC doesn't or didn't know anything about UD in Ca. I'm simply saying that there IS most definitely a hearing date served on the parties after an Answer is filed. Now I understand that CC and others in this forum hasn't had the misfortune to be evicted and therefore, you've never experienced getting a hearing date in the mail. Please Google "Unlawful Detainer Process in California"! Maybe you can understand that what I said is true.

 

[sandyclaus]

I notice you didn't answer my question...

are you a LICENSED document preparer?

LOL, silly question, CourtClerk. If they were a LICENSED document preparer, they would know that the form has to be filled out in order to request the trial.

I'd personally like to see them point out in the CCP, or even in the Local Rules, where it shows a request for trial is automatically entered following an answer being filed. I happen to know for a fact that they wouldn't actually have a request form for something that happens automatically. Even our Southern California court systems aren't that redundant.

 

[CourtClerk]

Hmmm...the thing that you, CBG and Court Clerk don't seem to grasp is that when a Defendant files an Answer to the UD, and has it served on the Plaintiff, it IS (technically) requesting a hearing (trial)!!

No, they are answering the complaint, NOT requesting a hearing...
and a trial notice is sent within days of the filing of the REQUEST. The court cares not whether a response is answered since the court cares not whether a response is filed. The plaintiff is the moving party and is responsible for moving their case. The court doesn't move automatically.

 

[CourtClerk]

Look CBG...I didn't exactly say CC doesn't or didn't know anything about UD in Ca. I'm simply saying that there IS most definitely a hearing date served on the parties after an Answer is filed. Now I understand that CC and others in this forum hasn't had the misfortune to be evicted and therefore, you've never experienced getting a hearing date in the mail. Please Google "Unlawful Detainer Process in California"! Maybe you can understand that what I said is true.

You're right, CC has never been evicted. However, CC has been RESPONSIBLE for sending out those trial dates. There are thousands of them with my name on the bottom of them. Thousands of them.

 

[sandyclaus]

Look CBG...I didn't exactly say CC doesn't or didn't know anything about UD in Ca. I'm simply saying that there IS most definitely a hearing date served on the parties after an Answer is filed. Now I understand that CC and others in this forum hasn't had the misfortune to be evicted and therefore, you've never experienced getting a hearing date in the mail. Please Google "Unlawful Detainer Process in California"! Maybe you can understand that what I said is true.

A hearing date was served because SOMEONE filed the request. Just because you weren't a party to it doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it certainly did not happen without the request.

Many years ago, I actually DID have the misfortune of going through the eviction process. So my own EXPERIENCE in the matter is where I get my information. I've received a hearing date in the mail - after the other side requested it.

And like CBG, I know EXACTLY what CC does for a living. You best not be challenging her wealth of knowledge in this particular area. In fact, for that very reason, even if I didn't have the personal experience, I'd be more inclined to take her stand on this - ESPECIALLY over an unlicensed (and illegal) attorney wannabe/document preparer.

 

[Willlyjo]

Do you have a license for that??? You do realize that CA REQUIRES document preparers to be licensed...

Actually, I don't have a license for it. I don't need one unless doing it on a full time basis. There is no law against helping someone like a friend or relative prepare their documents. I occassionally do this just as I occassionally write letters for people who aren't very good at putting words on a piece of paper.

I've served documents before too! A process server needs a license to work also, unless you do it infrequently, which I do. Come on CC--you already know this so why are you even questioning me about it?

 

[Willlyjo]

LOL, silly question, CourtClerk. If they were a LICENSED document preparer, they would know that the form has to be filled out in order to request the trial.

I'd personally like to see them point out in the CCP, or even in the Local Rules, where it shows a request for trial is automatically entered following an answer being filed. I happen to know for a fact that they wouldn't actually have a request form for something that happens automatically. Even our Southern California court systems aren't that redundant.

Do you really believe your logic?

 

[CourtClerk]

Actually, I don't have a license for it. I don't need one unless doing it on a full time basis. There is no law against helping someone like a friend or relative prepare their documents. I occassionally do this just as I occassionally write letters for people who aren't very good at putting words on a piece of paper.

That's not what you said earlier...
You said you've WORKED as a document preparer... I've got your words all over this forum now and if you actually took the time to read the B&P code, you'd know (or you already know) that what you've been doing as WORK constitutes an illegal act. The code mentions nothing about doing it on a full time basis. You were working as a document preparer and working constitutes compensation.

 

[Willlyjo]

You're right, CC has never been evicted. However, CC has been RESPONSIBLE for sending out those trial dates. There are thousands of them with my name on the bottom of them. Thousands of them.

Look, am I right or am I wrong? After an Answer to the eviction is filed, a hearing/trial date is sent to the parties in the UD action, right? If so, then why all the commotion? Maybe a request for trial HAS been made by the moving party (apparently so).

All I'm saying is that YOU WILL get a trial/hearing date within several days of filing your answer to the eviction--and I'm right.

I've never been a moving party in a UD action so, whatever happens after the filing to result in a court hearing (whether the moving party requests a trial or what), is irrelevant to what I said all along and that is: There WILL BE a hearing to resolve the matter UNLESS it is resolved BEFORE such hearing!

 

[cbg]

So you occasionally help someone put together a document, an action for which you are neither licensed nor paid; CC makes her living as the person who, among other duties, sends out the notices in question.

But we should listen to you over her.

Okay, I tried.

 

[Willlyjo]

That's not what you said earlier...
You said you've WORKED as a document preparer... I've got your words all over this forum now and if you actually took the time to read the B&P code, you'd know (or you already know) that what you've been doing as WORK constitutes an illegal act. The code mentions nothing about doing it on a full time basis. You were working as a document preparer and working constitutes compensation.

Work is work is work! The fact is, I'm NOT employed as a document preparer. If so, I agree, I would have to be licensed. If I help someone prepare their documents (which I sometimes do), it CAN be called work, right? So in that context, I've been working (very infrequently) over the past 2 decades as a document preparer for that relative or friend who had the misfortune to need my help filling out and/or filing their UD answer.

If you are accusing me of doing something illegal here, CC I suggest you be careful! I know a bit about Defamation law as well!

 

[Willlyjo]

A hearing date was served because SOMEONE filed the request. Just because you weren't a party to it doesn't mean it didn't happen, and it certainly did not happen without the request.

Many years ago, I actually DID have the misfortune of going through the eviction process. So my own EXPERIENCE in the matter is where I get my information. I've received a hearing date in the mail - after the other side requested it.

And like CBG, I know EXACTLY what CC does for a living. You best not be challenging her wealth of knowledge in this particular area. In fact, for that very reason, even if I didn't have the personal experience, I'd be more inclined to take her stand on this - ESPECIALLY over an unlicensed (and illegal) attorney wannabe/document preparer.

I agree with you! But you DID receive a hearing date in the mail, so you'd have to agree with me!

 

[Willlyjo]

So you occasionally help someone put together a document, an action for which you are neither licensed nor paid; CC makes her living as the person who, among other duties, sends out the notices in question.

But we should listen to you over her.

Okay, I tried.

I understand!!! The whole problem in this thread is that I wasn't aware that the "moving party" has to request a hearing date! I just assumed that once an Answer to the Eviction was filed, there WOULD BE a Hearing date sent in the mail. Admittedly, I assumed that filing such an Answer would automatically result in a Hearing date being sent in the mail. I didn't know that the moving party had to file a "Request for Trial"!

But look at it this way...isn't it true that 100% of moving parties WILL request a Hearing Date once an Answer to the Eviction is filed unless there is a resolution before hand? Anyone, please answer! The right answer is YES--therefore, it wouldn't be far off base to say it would almost be automatic.

 

[Proserpina]

Work is work is work! The fact is, I'm NOT employed as a document preparer. If so, I agree, I would have to be licensed. If I help someone prepare their documents (which I sometimes do), it CAN be called work, right? So in that context, I've been working (very infrequently) over the past 2 decades as a document preparer for that relative or friend who had the misfortune to need my help filling out and/or filing their UD answer.

If you are accusing me of doing something illegal here, CC I suggest you be careful! I know a bit about Defamation law as well!

Don't go there.

You don't know nearly as much as you think you do.

 

[CourtClerk]

If you are accusing me of doing something illegal here, CC I suggest you be careful! I know a bit about Defamation law as well!

Go for it. Your own words sunk yourself. Back peddle if you must, but everyone (including you) knows what you said and in the context in which you said it. You don't know much about any part of the law you think you know.