Can you actively lie to the court when answering a complaint without consequence?

[TheVictortheviking]

What is the name of your state? Florida.

Hello.

I have filed a complaint in court against a company in which their lawyer answered the complaint and actively lied on just about everything in the complaint.

My question is does that answer to the complaint speak for the defendant or simple speak for the lawyer representing the defendant.?
In other words, can the lawyer simple bury his head in the sand, put ear muff on and intentionally not hear the truth so that he can represent in his answer to the court about how he (personally) knows nothing about anything in the complaint and deny everything or is he obligated to at least ask his client if there is any truth to the complaint?

Does answering the complaint saying he knows nothing therefore denied say that the company he is representing knows nothing or that he has a individual lawyer knows nothing?

Some of the information is easily verifiable on documents I already have or can obtain from 3rd party with a subpoena. Would there be an advantage to proving that they knowingly lied to the court or are you allowed to lie during the answering of a complaint?

For example, they said they have no knowledge of certain people working for the company despite their name appears on the company website directory(with an actual photo of them) as well as listed on social media by the employee themselves. I don't think he is stretching the truth but rather outright lying about pretty much everything.

At some point does the little white lies turn into something more serious than a vigorous defense and end up as into Perjury/ contempt/false oath,etc..?

 

[Ohiogal]

Be clearer please in what you are asking. How did the lawyer actively lie?

 

[Eekamouse]

What is the name of your state? Florida.

Hello.

I have filed a complaint in court against a company in which their lawyer answered the complaint and actively lied on just about everything in the complaint.

My question is does that answer to the complaint speak for the defendant or simple speak for the lawyer representing the defendant.?
In other words, can the lawyer simple bury his head in the sand, put ear muff on and intentionally not hear the truth so that he can represent in his answer to the court about how he (personally) knows nothing about anything in the complaint and deny everything or is he obligated to at least ask his client if there is any truth to the complaint?

Does answering the complaint saying he knows nothing therefore denied say that the company he is representing knows nothing or that he has a individual lawyer knows nothing?

Some of the information is easily verifiable on documents I already have or can obtain from 3rd party with a subpoena. Would there be an advantage to proving that they knowingly lied to the court or are you allowed to lie during the answering of a complaint?

For example, they said they have no knowledge of certain people working for the company despite their name appears on the company website directory(with an actual photo of them) as well as listed on social media by the employee themselves. I don't think he is stretching the truth but rather outright lying about pretty much everything.

At some point does the little white lies turn into something more serious than a vigorous defense and end up as into Perjury/ contempt/false oath,etc..?

Just because the opposing party has a different story than you doesn't make them a liar nor does it mean you're telling the truth. That's for the court to decide.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? Florida.

Hello.

I have filed a complaint in court against a company in which their lawyer answered the complaint and actively lied on just about everything in the complaint.

My question is does that answer to the complaint speak for the defendant or simple speak for the lawyer representing the defendant.?
In other words, can the lawyer simple bury his head in the sand, put ear muff on and intentionally not hear the truth so that he can represent in his answer to the court about how he (personally) knows nothing about anything in the complaint and deny everything or is he obligated to at least ask his client if there is any truth to the complaint?

Does answering the complaint saying he knows nothing therefore denied say that the company he is representing knows nothing or that he has a individual lawyer knows nothing?

Some of the information is easily verifiable on documents I already have or can obtain from 3rd party with a subpoena. Would there be an advantage to proving that they knowingly lied to the court or are you allowed to lie during the answering of a complaint?

For example, they said they have no knowledge of certain people working for the company despite their name appears on the company website directory(with an actual photo of them) as well as listed on social media by the employee themselves. I don't think he is stretching the truth but rather outright lying about pretty much everything.

At some point does the little white lies turn into something more serious than a vigorous defense and end up as into Perjury/ contempt/false oath,etc..?

A lawyer does not provide the answers to a complaint. The defendant does. A lawyer for the defendant can assist the defendant in drafting the answers, though.

 

[NeilTheCop]

Take my case. The attorney for the defense stated that his client had been farming the field next to my house for nearly two decades before I purchased my property. The only thing is that I purchased my house in 2005 and my neighbor registered his company and got all his permits in 2012, and he only purchased the field in 2014. So what he claims is a physical impossibility and therefore a blatant lie.
Don't blame the attorney for telling the court what he has been told by his clent, even if they are lies.

 

[Taxing Matters]

At some point does the little white lies turn into something more serious than a vigorous defense and end up as into Perjury/ contempt/false oath,etc..?

The defendant cannot lie in his answer. But given the fairly short time period that a defendant has to file an answer, the lawyer will reply that it either denies an allegation or has no knowledge of the allegation for anything the lawyer cannot confirm prior to the filing of the answer. This is done because under the rules of evidence that are used in many courts the admission of an allegation in the complaint concedes that issue in the lawsuit and a defendant will not want to concede anything unless it certain of it. So it is very common to see answers in which the responses to most allegations are something similar to "deny" or "denies for lack of information". That simply then starts the case putting the plaintiff to the burden of proving the allegations he or she made in the complaint. The denial doesn't hurt the plaintiff other than he/she must prove what he or she said in the complaint, and as the plaintiff is not supposed to allege things that are untrue presumably the plaintiff will be able to do just that.

 

[adjusterjack]

The attorney for the defense stated that his client had been farming the field next to my house for nearly two decades before I purchased my property. The only thing is that I purchased my house in 2005 and my neighbor registered his company and got all his permits in 2012, and he only purchased the field in 2014.

None of that says he "wasn't" farming the fields for two decades before you purchased the property. He could have been farming without a permit, he could have be farming it for somebody else, or even squatting.

Is this an adverse possession action?

 

[LdiJ]

None of that says he "wasn't" farming the fields for two decades before you purchased the property. He could have been farming without a permit, he could have be farming it for somebody else, or even squatting.

Is this an adverse possession action?

I don't think that ordinary farming requires a permit. It just requires agricultural zoning. However, someone could farm land for decades if they were leasing the acreage. That is quite common. Squatting isn't common at all. Its expensive to put a crop in that you could lose if the owner exercises his/her ownership.

 

[Ohiogal]

FARMING was not mentioned in the original post.

 

[Just Blue]

FARMING was not mentioned in the original post.

No it wasn't. Neil brought it up using his own case as an example.

 

[Ohiogal]

No it wasn't. Neil brought it up using his own case as an example.

I understand that but it goes too afar on a tangent.

 

[quincy]

Responding with "neither affirm nor deny" is a relatively safe way to answer a complaint when you do not have enough information to know if the claims made in the complaint are true or false.

The answers to the complaint are based on the "truth" as the defendant is telling it to his attorney. While it should be the actual truth, people lie.

 

[cbg]

People also err. A person who believes that they are telling the truth but who is mistaken, is not lying.

 

[RJR]

Victor, read this.

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure:

Rule 1.110
(c) The Answer. In the answer a pleader shall state in short and plain terms the pleader's defenses to each claim asserted and shall admit or deny the averments on which the adverse party relies. If the defendant is without knowledge, the defendant shall so state and such statement shall operate as a denial. Denial shall fairly meet the substance of the averments denied. When a pleader intends in good faith to deny only a part of an averment, the pleader shall specify so much of it as is true and shall deny the remainder. Unless the pleader intends in good faith to controvert all of the averments of the preceding pleading, the pleader may make denials as specific denials of designated averments or may generally deny all of the averments except such designated averments as the pleader expressly admits, but when the pleader does so intend to controvert all of its averments, including averments of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, the pleader may do so by general denial.

(e) Effect of Failure to Deny. Averments in a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required, other than those as to the amount of damages, are admitted when not denied in the responsive pleading. Averments in a pleading to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided.

 

[quincy]

If the defendant strays too far from what the plaintiff sees as the truth when answering the claims made against him in the complaint, the plaintiff will need to address this in court.

The plaintiff presents the facts and evidence that support his case - and the defendant will present any available facts and evidence that support his defense against the claims.

A court decision does not necessarily reflect "truth" but rather it reflects the best version of the truth.