Plaintiff admits she never loaned me money but the magistrate ruled in her favor

[TigerD]

WHAT. U.S. State is this?

Makes a difference, does it?

sigh....

 

[Just Blue]

Makes a difference, does it?

sigh....

It really does! Sad that this personthatpostedunderasimilarnamebefore didn't bother.

 

[legal_curiosity]

WHAT. U.S. State is this?

Ohio

Let's make this easier since you want to dance around.

You willingly signed the note and agreed to pay her $3500. Why did you sign the note? Where did the $3500 come from such that you would sign a promissory note?

The $3500 would have came from her bank account I assume, had she ever went through with the loan. In every loan I've ever heard of you sign the contract before receiving the money so that's how this was done.

I retrieve the records I was after today. The magistrates decision from the child support hearing states. "Father's obligation to pay past support is reduced to zero effective December 31, 2011. Mother is forever precluded from collection the approximately $6,200 of past support waived as a result of this order."

She agreed in the child support hearing, and when signing the motion to reduce arrearages, that she was doing this voluntarily under her own accord without duress, pressure, threats, or undue influence from me or any other person.

 

[Proserpina]

Ohio




The $3500 would have came from her bank account I assume, had she ever went through with the loan. In every loan I've ever heard of you sign the contract before receiving the money so that's how this was done.

I retrieve the records I was after today. The magistrates decision from the child support hearing states. "Father's obligation to pay past support is reduced to zero effective December 31, 2011. Mother is forever precluded from collection the approximately $6,200 of past support waived as a result of this order."

The actual order contains this exact verbiage? "Mother is forever precluded"?

Really?

 

[legal_curiosity]

The actual order contains this exact verbiage? "Mother is forever precluded"?

Really?

http://www.tiikoni.com/tis/view/?id=6c5c28a

Yes it does. There is a censored upload of the document. I only blocked out the personal information, location information, and the county seal for privacy.

 

[BL]

The promissory note itself said it was a personal loan. But I think you've answered my question for me. The magistrate is trying to hold me accountable for a debt that has already been dismissed so there is absolutely reason for an objection.

You would have to go through the appeals process , if available being heard by small claims court .

Then provide your proofs .

 

[justalayman]

I would have to look up the child support information, which I'll be doing later today. She claimed in court yesterday that I had owed her $7000 in back support. I think it was probably more like 3-4000.

like right around oh, say, $3500 or so?

which strangely enough supports her claim that there was an agreement you had a remaining balance owed to her for child support.

Your next question might be why she would write off more than the $1200 and that was because we had had a discussion where I explained that since she rarely has a job that I felt it was morally wrong that she had been claiming our son on taxes every year considering she barely contributed financially. She surprisingly agreed, probably because she was begging me to allow her to take our son on vacation to Canada the following week.

It would appear her story is different than yours and the magistrate believed hers.

Yes it does. There is a censored upload of the document. I only blocked out the personal information, location information, and the county seal for privacy.

So, 2 years ago you signed a promissory note for $3500 and your child support arrears were wiped out 1 1/2 years ago so it simply looks like you owe the money simply because you agreed to pay it.

 

[legal_curiosity]

like right around oh, say, $3500 or so?

which strangely enough supports her claim that there was an agreement you had a remaining balance owed to her for child support.

I'm really not sure what your talking about. 7000 - 3500 is 3500, that it correct. But that would be subtracting what she said I owed her back then and what my guess was. That number holds no value.

The numbers you are looking for would be the amount of the arrearages (6200) minus the amount that she had owed me (1200) which gives us $5000. That's $1500 more than what her statement claims.

So, 2 years ago you signed a promissory note for $3500 and your child support arrears were wiped out 1 1/2 years ago so it simply looks like you owe the money simply because you agreed to pay it.

2 years ago I was discussing with her why I felt I was entitled to the income tax return every other year. She agreed and felt bad so offered to loan me $3500. She was never able to provide that money and stated she had lost the promissory note anyway. Months later she decides to write off the arrearages. A year and a half later she sues me.

I appreciate your constructive input. I'll update this thread with the results of the objection.

 

[justalayman]

legal_curiosity;3212030]I'm really not sure what your talking about. 7000 - 3500 is 3500, that it correct. But that would be subtracting what she said I owed her back then and what my guess was. That number holds no value.

You said this:

I would have to look up the child support information, which I'll be doing later today. She claimed in court yesterday that I had owed her $7000 in back support. I think it was probably more like 3-4000.

Seems a bit strange that you said the arrears were $3-4000 and lo and behold, guess what you were sued for?

 

[legal_curiosity]

Seems a bit strange that you said the arrears were $3-4000 and lo and behold, guess what you were sued for?

So because I incorrectly estimated that back then I owed her $3-4000, but it was actually $6200, that makes me responsible for a loan that never happened? I fail to follow your logic here.

I was asked what the difference was between what I owed child support and what she owed me. That number holds some merit here, not a random guesstimate I threw out.

If you take what my guesstimate was (which doesn't actually matter at all) or the factual number and get the difference of it and the money she owed me, neither of them come close to equalling the $3500 claim. Your comparing apples and oranges here.

 

[TheGeekess]

So because I incorrectly estimated that back then I owed her $3-4000, but it was actually $6200, that makes me responsible for a loan that never happened? I fail to follow your logic here.

I was asked what the difference was between what I owed child support and what she owed me. That number holds some merit here, not a random guesstimate I threw out.

If you take what my guesstimate was (which doesn't actually matter at all) or the factual number and get the difference of it and the money she owed me, neither of them come close to equalling the $3500 claim. Your comparing apples and oranges here.

You say she wiped out the arrearages INSTEAD of loaning you the money. So, she wants the other half of those arrearages back. I'm willing to bet the state told her when she did you that favor that it was all or nothing.

 

[Proserpina]

I am getting the distinct impression that she's going to win this one.

 

[legal_curiosity]

Stay tuned

 

[Proserpina]

Stay tuned

Don't think we'll need to

Seriously - whether or not we think it's "right" or "wrong", the fact that a magistrate has already ruled in her favor doesn't bode well for you.

And I'm almost willing to guess that this is exactly what your ex was thinking.

 

[legal_curiosity]

Don't think we'll need to

Seriously - whether or not we think it's "right" or "wrong", the fact that a magistrate has already ruled in her favor doesn't bode well for you.

And I'm almost willing to guess that this is exactly what your ex was thinking.

Kinda depends on which magistrate though I assume. The magistrate from the last hearing was had no details of our previous hearing. I'm confident that with the correct documentation they will agree that her claims are not valid.