The never ending story.

[ProSeDadinMD]

What is the name of your state? MD

Luckily, I am mildly paranoid. I checked out the judicial case search website, and lo and behold there it was. Apparently there is a “PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND VACATE ORDERS OF JUNE 6, 2007, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING”, which was filed on July 6(although I have yet to receive a copy).

I picked up a copy at lunch. What a crock. I’ll get deeper into it here later.

For now, what does this mean?

Maryland rule 9-208(g) is not jurisdictional; rather, it outlines certain requirements which, upon a party’s failure of compliance, may result in dismissal of the exceptions.

Is that like the pirates code, “they’re not really rules, more like guidelines”?

 

[Golfball]

Since there is a distinct lack of context here, I'm not sure your question can be answered without at least the initial June 6 ruling/hearing (or what the ruling was even about), or the rest of the motion.

For example, are we talking about a question of personal jurisdiction, what are the alleged exceptions, what is the alleged failure to comply, etc.?

 

[GrowUp!]

It sounds like that rule means just that. If a party fails to comply with (whatever), that COULD be grounds for partial dismissal (partial meaning the particular aspect they are allegedging non-compliance).

More important here is the fact that you were not served this complaint. If she filed this on July 6th, you are required to be served the same day (i.e. mailing you a time-stamped copy on the same date). I believe in many states, the party can serve the other party the motion before filing it with the court, but even then, there is like a 3-day or so window. But it's now been SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS!!

Did they make record that you picked up a copy? Was there a certificate of service attached to the copy you picked up? You could have her motion tossed based on the fact that she did not serve you as required.

 

[Zephyr]

was a hearing date specified?

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

No hearing date yet.

On the last of the 7 pages of the motion, the “Certificate of Service” is included. It states that it was mailed July 6, 2007. If I receive it now, I’m going to keep the envelope showing when it was mailed.

As for a record of having gotten it today, I have a receipt from the copy center of the court for $3.50, the seven pages at $.50 per.

...Her... motion is full of false statements concerning "evidence" which they say was presented at the hearing, but never was.

Looks like it will be late nights for me this weekend to answer these within 10 days of the filing, since I'm still on vacation with my daughter and don't want this to intrude.

 

[GrowUp!]

Looks like it will be late nights for me this weekend to answer these within 10 days of the filing, since I'm still on vacation with my daughter and don't want this to intrude.

You have not been served this motion by her. You do not have to answer this within the prescribed time. Let her be held accountable by her f-up. You already stated that you will hang onto the envelope as evidence, so why spend all of your time on this and let her off the hook? Let her further dig herself a bigger hole by showing to the court that she perjured herself with that certificate of service. Just look at the language. Dude, enjoy your weekend.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

I received her motion...

...however, the envelope is postmarked the 9th, not the 6th. Either way, I'm including this in my answer.

I especially like the finger pointing in the Motion, like saying I am "giddy with power", and that I feel myself "bulletproof"....

The timing of this was apparently planned to make sure that I didn't have time to respond, since this past week has been my vacation week with my daughter, and being Pro Se, I would be doing it myself.

And my daughter and I have been enjoying our weekend, and are continuing to do so, thank you very much.

 

[GrowUp!]

...however, the envelope is postmarked the 9th, not the 6th. Either way, I'm including this in my answer.

I especially like the finger pointing in the Motion, like saying I am "giddy with power", and that I feel myself "bulletproof"....

The timing of this was apparently planned to make sure that I didn't have time to respond, since this past week has been my vacation week with my daughter, and being Pro Se, I would be doing it myself.

And my daughter and I have been enjoying our weekend, and are continuing to do so, thank you very much.

Don't waste time with your daughter responding to this. When you file your response, you should also file a motion for sanctions against your ex for filing a frivolous suit and not following procedures. You will need to look up the appropriate language regarding what's considered frivolous and then the rules of procedure for service. Start holding her financially responsible for such crap.

She clearly did not mail it on the 6th or it would have been postmarked the same day (unless the delivery had already taken place for that box that day...but 3 days later?? Nice try on her part). You can file your motion later, but I forget exactly what it's called again. I believe it's a latin term, so even if you don't respond within the time prescribed, you can still file using the latin term. Uggh. Brain-fart.

 

[LdiJ]

The 6th was Friday. If she didn't actually get it into the mail until after noon on Saturday, then it wouldn't have gotten postmarked until Monday, which was the 9th.

So, she might not have been as late as is supposed.

 

[Accountable]

Also the date of service is considered the date it was deposited in a U.S. mail recepticle, not when it was postmarked.....once it's in the box, regardless of pick-up times, it's considered served.

However, you might check your local rules. In some courts, when the certificate of service states that service is made via U.S. mail (as opposed to via fax or email), you are allowed an additional 3 days for filing your answer.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

The date of service is not where I am aiming....

... but if I thought it was the key, I'd turn it.

I've written both my Answer, and my Motion to Dismiss. We shall see....

Like I said, there's a lot of "inuendo" aimed at me, to make me seem like the "bad guy", but no proof of anything. Hell, I coulld "say" a lot worse things about ...her...but that doesn't mean any of it is true, without "proof".

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

In my Answer to …her… petition, I am including copies of the transcript from the Recommendations Hearing that show the exact opposite of what is claimed in the Motion, as well as several other things that show a similar pattern of behavior. I also included a comment that 14 of the 18 items listed in the motion had no bearing on whether the dismissal should be overturned, and that this is just a back-door way of getting exceptions heard, as well as a personal attack on my character.