• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


UCL last won the day on October 14 2013

UCL had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About UCL

  • Rank
    Impressive 100+ postings

Profile Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

466 profile views
  1. I’m a little confused and also concerned about your steps after your initial post. I’ve volunteered for domestic violence victims for much of my career, and would not want your legal defenses given your entanglement with your criminal-history exhusband to be waived. But first, service. While evading service is never a good idea, nor is abandoning your rights under the rules of service a good idea. It’s not clear to me that you have yet been served. If you were sent certified mail but didn’t sign it, you haven’t been served. What is your current status? Second, the merits of their lawsuit. You described the Amazon credit card as “mine.” Was it in your name only? Was the debt incurred prior to your divorce filing? I would like to know whether you have any arguments that your share of this debt is 50% or even lower. I don’t know the answer, but there might be some decent arguments for that conclusion. Third, what does your divorce decree say about the resolution of outstanding debts? It’s standard for divorce decrees to address this.
  2. I don't know California law or procedure. But, broadly speaking, it sounds to me like you have grounds to file a "Motion to Quash Service and to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute." This might be called something different in the California court system, but the principles are the same.
  3. Have you considered filing for bankruptcy? Make sure that you get an answer filed before the deadline. Do not assume that because of your difficult circumstances, the legal process will stop for you. It will roll you over. File an answer on time, and take this process one step at a time. Educate yourself here to see if you might have legal defenses to the lawsuit.
  4. I think you should be quiet. The more time that lapses, the less likely it is that they will come up with some shady argument to re-open the case, amend the complaint, or some other shenanigan which these justice courts are apparently more than happy to endorse. It still terrifies me that the only appellate court overseeing these yahoos is the Superior Court's appellate division. I'd feel better if you had the Arizona Supreme Court lording over these lower court judicial officers.
  5. Just to be clear, they did not name your spouse in the caption of their complaint, is that correct? Nor did they designate a "Jane Doe" as your spouse in the caption, right?
  6. Dude. That. Is. AWESOME. Hold strong on this. You are 100% correct that the debt is uncollectible. Let them go ahead and pursue your separate assets. If you've been married a long time, for all they know your separate assets are basically your baseball card collection from when you were a teenager, and that old t-shirt you refuse to throw out. Hahaha!!!
  7. What a load of crap. Accurate crap but still crap. It appears that an old appellate decision confirms that rule as well. Morgan v. Continental Mortgage Investors, 16 Ariz.App. 86, 491 P.2d. 475 (Ct. App. 1971). I think that is patently unfair.
  8. "In AZ Justice Court, there is only one appeal, and that goes to the Superior Court. The Superior Court's appellate findings are final in that you cannot appeal those decisions to the AZ Court of Appeals." Wait, what? Says who? Source?
  9. BV is correct. The point of 139(e) is that a plaintiff has to explain what its basis for asking fees is. Is it the statute? Is it a contractual clause? If it's he latter, the contract must be attached. The motion must specifically explain where the fee provision is located, too.
  10. I'm not seeing permissive language on whether the contract should be attached. This rule is a command to attach the contract. And have they attached an actual signed affidavit?
  11. I'd get rid of the "motion to strike" language. Just make this a "response and objection to." Subsection (e) required them to file a motion and they failed to file a motion. Subsection (e) required them to attach the contract and they failed to attach the contract. (I assume that's accurate.) Have you confirmed that they asked for attorney fees in their complaint?
  12. Exactly. You've digested all of it. They failed to follow basic procedure. Cite the rules and try and get even their reduced attorney fee request denied. And if it's not, get it denied on appeal.
  13. Gotcha. Their position strikes me as weird but I don't practice collection law so that doesn't mean anything. I don't see an attorney fee provision in what you've quoted. Did you notice that Rule 139(e) requires them to attach the applicable contract document? Aggressively attack their fee request. Comply with the 5 day limit if you can even though they cheated and should be giving you more time than that.