Liar Liar Pants On Fire

[DEDE 8]

I am in the process of suing an ex-neighbor for property damage. She is counter-claiming such things as damage to her car. She couldn't possibly have any evidence, as I did not do it. Is it legally permissable for her to accuse me of things without evidence? If so, how do you counteract it? Are judges used to this type of thing, where the defendant has no defense, but tries to sully the plaintiff?

 

[ENASNI]

I am in the process of suing an ex-neighbor for property damage. She is counter-claiming such things as damage to her car. She couldn't possibly have any evidence, as I did not do it. Is it legally permissable for her to accuse me of things without evidence? If so, how do you counteract it? Are judges used to this type of thing, where the defendant has no defense, but tries to sully the plaintiff?

Nah, judges are used to people telling them the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[snostar]

Is it legally permissable for her to accuse me of things without evidence?

Yes.

If so, how do you counteract it?

She needs to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the culprit. An alibi would help, too.

Are judges used to this type of thing, where the defendant has no defense, but tries to sully the plaintiff?

Yes.

 

[ENASNI]

Yes.
She needs to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the culprit. An alibi would help, too.
Yes.

Ah, snostar, you are no fun.

 

[snostar]

Ah, snostar, you are no fun.

That's not what I was told last night...and this morning!
But, I just spent the past few hours with two special agents from Homeland Security, their somber mood must have rubbed off on me.

 

[DEDE 8]

THANKS FOR THE SERIOUS AND NOT-SO-SERIOUS REPLIES!

The old bag said in her complaint that the car was "mysteriously damaged" one night at her house one year ago in January! (She didn't even have the date! It's tough to account for all my nights a year ago! So, she's accusing me with no evidence)

My state is md - but it doesn't matter anyway...

P.S. I wouldn't allow govt. people to rub off on me...

 

[snostar]

THANKS FOR THE SERIOUS AND NOT-SO-SERIOUS REPLIES!

The old bag said in her complaint that the car was "mysteriously damaged" one night at her house one year ago in January! (She didn't even have the date! It's tough to account for all my nights a year ago! So, she's accusing me with no evidence)

Then don't worry about it. Focus on your claim and documented proof of damage (you do have some, correct?). People make up BS in court all the time...and since she wasn't even creative it will not likely attract much attention.

 

[badapple40]

One small point -- she does not need to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

She needs to prove that you did it by a preponderance of the evidence. And it sounds like she has not even pled a valid theory of relief -- so you should file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

 

[DEDE 8]

"Failure to state a claim"
"Pled a valid theory of relief"

Can you please define these for me? (She had a long list of items, saying that "some individual" did them)

 

[Ohiogal]

Yes.
She needs to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you are the culprit. An alibi would help, too.
Yes.

Actually I think in civil cases it is just by a preponderance of the evidence that he is the culprit that is necessary. Beyond a reasonable doubt is in criminal cases.

 

[HomeGuru]

Actually I think in civil cases it is just by a preponderance of the evidence that he is the culprit that is necessary. Beyond a reasonable doubt is in criminal cases.

**A: yes, but let's not get too technical here as most of the readers are not legal counselors.

 

[snostar]

Actually I think in civil cases it is just by a preponderance of the evidence that he is the culprit that is necessary. Beyond a reasonable doubt is in criminal cases.

Nice! I love to learn. Unfortunately our poster did not include their state, the standard appears to be case/state specific. But, here's something I found on the subject:

U.S. Supreme Court
CALIFORNIA v. MITCHELL BROS.' SANTA ANA THEATER, 454 U.S. 90 (1981)
:In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 370 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring). Three standards of proof are generally recognized, ranging from the "preponderance of the evidence" standard employed in most civil cases, to the "clear and convincing" 6 standard reserved to protect particularly important interests in a limited number of civil cases, to the requirement that guilt be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal prosecution. See Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 -424 (1979). This Court has, on several occasions, held that the "clear and convincing" standard or one of its variants is the appropriate standard of proof in a particular civil case. See Addington v. Texas, supra, at 431 (civil commitment); Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 52 (1971) (libel); Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276, 285 (1966) (deportation); Chaunt v. United States, 364 U.S. 350, 353 (1960) (denaturalization); Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 159 (1943) (denaturalization). However, the Court has never required the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to be applied in a civil case. "This unique standard of proof, not prescribed or defined in the Constitution, is regarded as a critical part of the `moral force of the criminal law,' In re Winship, 397 U.S., at 364 , and we should hesitate to apply it too broadly or casually in noncriminal cases." Addington v. Texas, supra, at 428.

Thus while a State may require proof beyond reasonable doubt in an obscenity case, that choice is solely a matter of state law."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=454&invol=90