Eviction: Contested Case

[cbg]

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"!

Exactly.

 

[ecmst12]

Since the OP in this thread is the LANDLORD, it is important that questions be answered from the point of view of the plaintiff/moving party.

If OP wants a trial date set, he needs to fill out the form.

Someone ANSWERING an eviction suit has no need to fill out this form.

 

[CourtClerk]

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!

No, it's not true. Not at all. Especially if a self represented plaintiff employed you to prepare their documents. You'd be too busy trying to tell them that the court messed up because they didn't automatically set their case for trial.

Not to mention all the people, like the OP who don't know what to do. Those cases just sit until the court sets an OSC and dismisses.

 

[CourtClerk]

Someone ANSWERING an eviction suit has no need to fill out this form.

Most times. Sometimes they do file. Most times they won't but I have seen an occasion or two where a counter request has been filed. That's almost always in the case where the landlord is a slum lord and the defendant wants the case to go before the court where they know that they know that they know they're going to win. Once that case is won in their favor, the plaintiff would need a completely new cause of action to sue again,

 

[Willlyjo]

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.

I know enough about the law to be satisfied. For instance, the fact I didn't know that the moving party has to file a request for trial didn't hurt me at all! Nor will not knowing that hurt any Defendant in any UD action. The fact that most of this thread was spent debating over that little incidental, needless and irrelevant bit of euducation is laughable.

Don't put words in my mouth...I may have embellished about "working for the last 2 decades as a document preparer", but my intent was to impress upon you that my statement "there is a hearing date" sent after the Defendant files an Answer" is accurate.

Truely, it doesn't matter how much a person "works" at helping to prepare documents (whether it is infrequently like I did or everyday), if he is not getting compensation for it, it isn't illegal according to the B&P code.

The bottom line in all this is I'm not questioning your vast knowledge on this subject. It's just that your vast knowledge has allowed you to knit-pic with me because I didn't know that the "moving party files a 'request for trial'". It really wasn't necessary because it didn't change the fact that a trial date DOES get sent to the parties soon after an Answer to the UD is filed. I guess that is why courts are so backed up eh? Because there is so much needless redtape involved.

 

[Willlyjo]

No, it's not true. Not at all. Especially if a self represented plaintiff employed you to prepare their documents. You'd be too busy trying to tell them that the court messed up because they didn't automatically set their case for trial.

Not to mention all the people, like the OP who don't know what to do. Those cases just sit until the court sets an OSC and dismisses.

Now that doesn't make sense! If I was going to prepare documents for a self represented plaintiff, I'd know what is needed to do so! Just as I know what is needed to represent myself as a Defendant in a UD action.

But you are right, a self represented plaintiff better know that he has to file a request for trial after an answer has been filed. I don't see such a person NOT having a preparer willing to help him that isn't aware of that though.

 

[CourtClerk]

I don't see such a person NOT having a preparer willing to help him that isn't aware of that though.

Again.. real life experience. I have. People get taken advantage of every day.

 

[ecmst12]

THIS POSTER did not know that he had to file a request for a trial date in order to get one. He NEEDED to be told that information. YOU gave him WRONG WRONG WRONG and UNHELPFUL information!!!!

A trial date is NOT sent after an answer has been filed, other than by coincidence. It is sent after a REQUEST for a trial date is filed.

So please, if you don't know the answer, don't say anything. And if you THINK you know the answer, and are told by someone who knows better than you that you were wrong, accept it gracefully and APOLOGIZE to the OP for giving wrong information.

That, at least, is what grownups do.

 

[CourtClerk]

Don't put words in my mouth...I may have embellished about "working for the last 2 decades as a document preparer",

Lied. The correct word is lied. You either lied when you said you "worked" as a document preparer or you lied when you said you didn't. In either event, you lied and that speaks A LOT about your credibility on this forum.

But for the fact that I could prove what I said and started to really question you and back that information up, you would have continued with your LIE. However, I'm gonna go ahead and let this die now because at least now, anyone who reads this thread (and I will make sure there are plenty, including M), will know you are a LIAR.

 

[Searchertwin]

Lied. The correct word is lied. You either lied when you said you "worked" as a document preparer or you lied when you said you didn't. In either event, you lied and that speaks A LOT about your credibility on this forum.

But for the fact that I could prove what I said and started to really question you and back that information up, you would have continued with your LIE. However, I'm gonna go ahead and let this die now because at least now, anyone who reads this thread (and I will make sure there are plenty, including M), will know you are a LIAR.

Why would you want to continue with such name calling? Calling someone a liar? Remember,"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

He did try to correct himself and still everyone kept at him. I am sure everyone has given wrong advice and try to make amends. He did just that.

He stated, "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"!

What more do you want? The only thing I got here was that my occupation was better than your occupation. Did anyone really answer op question?

Take care

 

[MIRAKALES]

The California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) website states:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ud150.pdf

"An unlawful detainer lawsuit is a "summary" court procedure. This means that the court action moves forward very quickly, and that the time given the tenant to respond during the lawsuit is very short. For example, in most cases, the tenant has only five days to file a written response to the lawsuit after being served with a copy of the landlord's summons and complaint.298 Normally, a judge will hear and decide the case within 20 days after the tenant or the landlord files a request to set the case for trial.299"

"After you have filed your written answer to the landlord's complaint, the Clerk of Court will mail to both you and the landlord a notice of the time and place of the trial. If you don't appear in court, a default judgment will be entered against you."
http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/landlordbook/evictions.shtml

The California procedure form for Unlawful Detainer Trial (UD-150) clearly requests (in bold capital letters) by either the plaintiff or defendant "To Set Case For Trial - Unlawful Detainer" and clearly requests (in bold capital letters) whether the "Unlawful Detainer Assistant" did or did not receive compensation to give advice or assistance with the form. The form further provides notice that "An unlawful detainer case must be set for trial on a date not later than 20 days after the first request to set the case for trial is made (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1170.5(a))." http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ud150.pdf

 

[MIRAKALES]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA
I'm in the process of evicting some tenants for non payment of rent.
They answered complaining the heater suddenly doesn't work, no prob though my handyman will test / fix
I'm trying to determine the next form I must submit, I believe a "Stipulation for entry of Judgement" will work.
Can any one confirm or recommend the correct form?
PS - I have the Nolo book for this but it's somewhat unclear.

To respond to the landlord’s post about the use of the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment-Unlawful Detainer (Form UD-115), the California Courts' website information about Self-Help Eviction provides the following information:

“If the landlord and tenant reach an agreement:

Sometimes, the tenant agrees to move out and just needs more time to find housing. Or the tenant is willing to make the changes the landlord asked for and the landlord is also willing to do what the tenant asks.

If the landlord has not filed an unlawful detainer case yet, then both can write up the agreement clearly and make sure everyone understands what to do.

If the landlord has already filed a lawsuit, the landlord and tenant should write up an agreement, called a "stipulation," to file with the court.

You can write up your own agreement, or you can use the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment-Unlawful Detainer (Form UD-115). This form tells the court the exact terms of the agreement.”
http://www.courts.ca.gov/selfhelp-eviction.htm

 

[Willlyjo]

Lied. The correct word is lied. You either lied when you said you "worked" as a document preparer or you lied when you said you didn't. In either event, you lied and that speaks A LOT about your credibility on this forum.

But for the fact that I could prove what I said and started to really question you and back that information up, you would have continued with your LIE. However, I'm gonna go ahead and let this die now because at least now, anyone who reads this thread (and I will make sure there are plenty, including M), will know you are a LIAR.

Now you are talking nonsense! You claim I lied when I said I worked as a document preparer eh? The Webster dictionary defines "Work" as an effort exerted to do or make something. It defines "Worker" as one who works for a cause. Either one can be done without compensation and either one can be accurate in my description of my infrequent document preparation.

Within the definition of "Work" and "Worker", it is a fact that I worked (at one time or another) over the past 2 decades as a document preparer!!! For you to say I lied is wrong!!! I admitted my shortcomings as far as not knowing the Plaintiff needs to have a Request filed...now why don't you admit yours!!

Please make sure lots and lots of people read this thread (as you say you will) because they will conclude as Searchtowin did, that you are just continuing on with something that should have been ended long ago. Also, by claiming I lied when I said I was a document preparer or I lied when I didn't say it, is a lie in itself, so if anyone is a liar--you are!! It is what it is!!

 

[TimStudiesLaw]

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

A little old lady pushed her way through the crowd and hurled a HUGE rock.

Jesus said "MOM! You really piss me off sometimes"

 

[CalRehabber]

Thanks All, especially Court Clerk.. I'm the OP and LL in this case.. I did fill out the UD150 as suggested and filed this morning, have a hearing date of 6/18 and this will move me closer to the end now.