Agreement to Settle with Prejudice: Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice filed.

[weepignwillow66]

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


First and foremost, the debt was paid in full. I spoke with a representative that told me that the motion to dismiss would be without prejudice. I then told her that it made no sense to me why their office would submit a motion to dismiss without prejudice when I have paid the amount in full. The creditor is getting their money. There is no reason why their office would need to leave a door open to sue me for the same case in the future if it is being closed due to the fact that I am paying it off. The rep. said she wanted to talk to her supervisor about it. When she came back to the phone she told me that they would file the dismissal with prejudice per my request. I told her, "Then I am requesting for the motion of dismissal with prejudice." She said okay and then 3 MORE TIMES TOLD ME that the dismissal was WITH PREJUDICE.

Much to my dismay, I received a copy of the dismissal today via the postal service and they filed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This law firm is shady and crooked! I am so beyond upset right now. These crooks not only lied but now I am pretty much CONVINCED that they are going to try and file some more bull crap against me even though I have taken responsibility and PAID MY DUES.

I'm in a whirlwind right now. Come Monday I'm filing a complaint with the State Bar, the Attorney General and my local BBB as well as the BBB in their law firms headquartered state. Hopefully the Consumers Advocate I've been in contact throughout this nightmare may actually be able to do something now.

I know that the BBB has nothing to do with this: but I want people to be aware or their tactics and to know up front what these people are going to do. I want to make sure people know these things.

Oh yeah, not to mention: I wasn't served my summons properly.

The Court Services clerk just dropped my summons off in the mailbox when no one was home. No certified mail. Nothing in person.
In my State, if the Court Services person can't catch me in person, all documents must be returned to the court clerk and then mailed out to me via certified mail.

Any other suggestions is the Consumers Advocate can't help me?

 

[Nellibelle]

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


First and foremost, the debt was paid in full. I spoke with a representative that told me that the motion to dismiss would be without prejudice. I then told her that it made no sense to me why their office would submit a motion to dismiss without prejudice when I have paid the amount in full. The creditor is getting their money. There is no reason why their office would need to leave a door open to sue me for the same case in the future if it is being closed due to the fact that I am paying it off. The rep. said she wanted to talk to her supervisor about it. When she came back to the phone she told me that they would file the dismissal with prejudice per my request. I told her, "Then I am requesting for the motion of dismissal with prejudice." She said okay and then 3 MORE TIMES TOLD ME that the dismissal was WITH PREJUDICE.

Much to my dismay, I received a copy of the dismissal today via the postal service and they filed WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This law firm is shady and crooked! I am so beyond upset right now. These crooks not only lied but now I am pretty much CONVINCED that they are going to try and file some more bull crap against me even though I have taken responsibility and PAID MY DUES.

I'm in a whirlwind right now. Come Monday I'm filing a complaint with the State Bar, the Attorney General and my local BBB as well as the BBB in their law firms headquartered state. Hopefully the Consumers Advocate I've been in contact throughout this nightmare may actually be able to do something now.

I know that the BBB has nothing to do with this: but I want people to be aware or their tactics and to know up front what these people are going to do. I want to make sure people know these things.

Oh yeah, not to mention: I wasn't served my summons properly.

The Court Services clerk just dropped my summons off in the mailbox when no one was home. No certified mail. Nothing in person.
In my State, if the Court Services person can't catch me in person, all documents must be returned to the court clerk and then mailed out to me via certified mail.

Any other suggestions is the Consumers Advocate can't help me?

If you paid your debt in full and have documentation showing that you paid it in full, you probably have nothing to worry about. It is a good thing that you are "TRYING" to make people aware of the corrupt actions of others.

 

[single317dad]

Your having paid the debt in full is an affirmative defense against any future lawsuit that is filed against you.

You got a really good receipt, right?

 

[TigerD]

Your having paid the debt in full is an affirmative defense against any future lawsuit that is filed against you.

You got a really good receipt, right?

Or they could be attempting to demand this before the check bounces...

TD

 

[Zigner]

If you paid your debt in full and have documentation showing that you paid it in full, you probably have nothing to worry about. It is a good thing that you are trying to make people aware of the corrupt actions of others.

There are no "corrupt actions" occurring here.

 

[Ohiogal]

A representative -- unless a lawyer -- cannot tell you how anything would be filed. And a creditor is NOT the same as a law firm.

 

[Nellibelle]

There are no "corrupt actions" occurring here.

"IF" an Attorney promised to put together a dismissal "with prejudice" and did it "without prejudice," I would think that would be a corrupt thing to do, wouldn't you?

 

[quincy]

If an Attorney promised to put together a dismissal "with prejudice" and did it "without prejudice," I would think that would be a corrupt thing to do, wouldn't you?

Did you read the original post and did you read Ohiogal's reply, Nellibelle? I have to assume from your responses so far that the answer is "no."

WHERE did weepignwillow66 say that an attorney promised to "put together a dismissal with prejudice?"

weepignwillow66 DID say that she spoke with a representative who spoke with a supervisor. Was the representative an attorney? Was the supervisor an attorney? Not at all likely.

Calling an agency or law firm "corrupt" is NOT a smart thing to do without proof of corruption. Making false statements about an agency or firm can result in more legal headaches for weepignwillow66 - and I am sure weepignwillow66 wants to avoid court for awhile. I hope that the Consumer Advocate weepignwillow has knows the law and will guide her accordingly.

 

[Nellibelle]

Did you read the original post and did you read Ohiogal's reply, Nellibelle? I have to assume from your responses so far that the answer is "no."

WHERE did weepignwillow66 say that an attorney promised to "put together a dismissal with prejudice?"

weepignwillow66 DID say that she spoke with a representative who spoke with a supervisor. Was the representative an attorney? Was the supervisor an attorney? Not at all likely.

Calling an agency or law firm "corrupt" is NOT a smart thing to do without proof of corruption. Making false statements about an agency or firm can result in more legal headaches for weepignwillow66 - and I am sure weepignwillow66 wants to avoid court for awhile. I hope that the Consumer Advocate weepignwillow has knows the law and will guide her accordingly.

I get that the OP was told by the creditor (Agency Representative) that a motion to dismiss with prejudice would be happening. If it was suppose to be with prejudice and it was 'without prejudice' then someone did something wrong! I never said the Attorney promised to put together a dismissal with prejudice!! I said that IF HE PROMISED TO, AND INSTEAD, DID IT "WITHOUT PREDJUDICE, THAT IT WOULD BE A CORRUPT THING TO DO! I DID read the OP's post, but obviously YOU didn't read my response! I never called the Agency nor the Law Firm corrupt!!! Anyone who reads my response can easily see that, so you are wrong for saying so!!

 

[Just Blue]

I get that the OP was told by the creditor (Agency Representative) that a motion to dismiss with prejudice would be happening. If it was suppose to be with prejudice and it was 'without prejudice' then someone did something wrong! I never said the Attorney promised to put together a dismissal with prejudice!! I said that IF HE PROMISED TO, AND INSTEAD, DID IT "WITHOUT PREDJUDICE, THAT IT WOULD BE A CORRUPT THING TO DO! I DID read the OP's post, but obviously YOU didn't read my response! I never called the Agency nor the Law Firm corrupt!!! Anyone who reads my response can easily see that, so you are wrong for saying so!!

So...Who are the "corrupt others" you were referring to?

Originally Posted by Nellibelle
If you paid your debt in full and have documentation showing that you paid it in full, you probably have nothing to worry about. It is a good thing that you are trying to make people aware of the corrupt actions of others.

 

[quincy]

I get that the OP was told by the creditor (Agency Representative) that a motion to dismiss with prejudice would be happening. If it was suppose to be with prejudice and it was 'without prejudice' then someone did something wrong! I never said the Attorney promised to put together a dismissal with prejudice!! I said that IF HE PROMISED TO, AND INSTEAD, DID IT "WITHOUT PREDJUDICE, THAT IT WOULD BE A CORRUPT THING TO DO! I DID read the OP's post, but obviously YOU didn't read my response! I never called the Agency nor the Law Firm corrupt!!! Anyone who reads my response can easily see that, so you are wrong for saying so!!

You stated it was a good thing for weepignwillow66 to "make people aware of the corrupt actions of others" and you said that it "would be corrupt" for an attorney to promise to file a motion to dismiss without the words "with prejudice."

The implications are certainly there.

Corrupt = Tainted; vitiated; depraved; debased; morally degenerate. Used as a verb = to change ones morals and principles from good to bad.

If you insist on posting to this LEGAL forum, please try to control what you say so that you do not get a poster in trouble. A poster is usually here because they are already having difficulty handling a legal problem. The advice (or "opinions") offered should not guide them in a direction that can create additional legal problems for them.

Thank you for understanding the corrections that have been made to your posts, Nellibelle, in this thread and others.

 

[Nellibelle]

So...Who are the "corrupt others" you were referring to?

The OP stated in her thread that she should receive a dismissal "with prejudice" and the representative, after consulting with the supervisor, said it WOULD BE dismissed "with prejudice" and then it turned out that it wasn't!

The OP seems to think the law firm is shady and crooked! They might be--we don't know for sure, but if they are and she can prove it, then as I posted, it is a good thing!

 

[Nellibelle]

You stated it was a good thing for weepignwillow66 to "make people aware of the corrupt actions of others" and you said that it "would be corrupt" for an attorney to promise to file a motion to dismiss without the words "with prejudice."

The implications are certainly there.

Corrupt = Tainted; vitiated; depraved; debased; morally degenerate. Used as a verb = to change ones morals and principles from good to bad.

If you insist on posting to this LEGAL forum, please try to control what you say so that you do not get a poster in trouble. A poster is usually here because they are already having difficulty handling a legal problem. The advice (or "opinions") offered should not guide them in a direction that can create additional legal problems for them.

Thank you for understanding the corrections that have been made to your posts, Nellibelle, in this thread and others.

What you are saying doesn't make sense here! Again, the OP thinks the law firm is "shady and crooked!" For all we know, they very well could be! The OP said she was going to file a complaint with the ABA and the Attorney General because she believes she was told by them that she would get a dismissal with prejudice and she got a dismissal without prejudice! WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS surrounding her communications with the Rep and/or the Law Firm. It could be possible that the ABA might find something unethical about the way the OP was told one thing and they wrongfully did another!

As I already stated, if the OP does show that the law firm is shady and crooked as she believes, I would be very happy if she made many people aware of it! To spread the word that a law firm is shady and crooked without proof would be a very foolish thing to do and I already believe the OP knows that despite the fact her opinioon is that they are shady and crooked for telling her one thing and doing another.

 

[quincy]

The OP stated in her thread that she should receive a dismissal "with prejudice" and the representative, after consulting with the supervisor, said it WOULD BE dismissed "with prejudice" and then it turned out that it wasn't!

The OP seems to think the law firm is shady and crooked! They might be--we don't know for sure, but if they are and she can prove it, then as I posted, it is a good thing!

But, Nellibelle, none of what you say here is what you said in your posts.

It is NOT "a good thing to make people aware of the corrupt actions of others" if they only THINK a firm or an attorney is shady and crooked - and yet you told the poster it was a good thing. You made no mention of the importance of PROOF before making such claims.

In other words, you are throwing around a legal term without understanding the implications of applying that term wrongly to a professional person or an entity. And there is nothing said in the original post that indicates there has been any corruption.

You are not only not doing a poster any favors with your comments, you are potentially creating additional legal issues for them. Don't do that. Period.

 

[Ohiogal]

The OP stated in her thread that she should receive a dismissal "with prejudice" and the representative, after consulting with the supervisor, said it WOULD BE dismissed "with prejudice" and then it turned out that it wasn't!

The OP seems to think the law firm is shady and crooked! They might be--we don't know for sure, but if they are and she can prove it, then as I posted, it is a good thing!

Law firm? How do we know she was speaking to a representative of a law firm? Oh yeah, we don't.