PRA Group claimform old MBNA card 'debt'

[johno23]

Thanks Andy will try and complete a draft witness statement, see how I get on!

[johno23]

Hi Andy, please can you look at the witness statement below, I have made a good go of it, but will need help to ensure it makes sense and it fluent.

Kind regards

Witness Statement

1) This statement is made in opposition to the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and by which the Claimant contends I have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim against me.

2) I believe that the debt is on a simple contract and has not been acknowledged or no payment made for at least 6 years and the claimant is barred from enforcing the debt pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.

3) The claimants witness statement does not provide any evidence that the debt was acknowledged or a payment has been made within the last 6 years.

4) Attached with this witness statement is an MBNA statement dated 17th February 2009, where a payment was made on the account on the 3rd February 2009.

5) Attached with this witness statement is an MBNA statement dated 18th March 2009, which includes, a statement of defaulted sums “One or more default sums for late, overlimit or returned payments, is included in this month’s statement”

6) Also in the statement dated 18th March 2009 it states “Failing to make your minimum payment can mean that you have broken the terms of this credit agreement and could result in us taking legal action against you. It could lead to your having to pay additional costs and make it more difficult for you to obtain credit future in the future”, “Your account facility remains withdrawn”.

7) With regards to the default notice exhibited at SRJG1 in the claimants bundle it provides a Default Notice dated 9th October 2009, where the arrears needed to be paid by the 26th October 2009. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Default notice was issued after 8 months after the last payment was made on the 3rd February 2009. An alleged creditor is not given any right in law to decide for themselves when the cause of action will begin simply by issuing a default notice. If this was the case, then it would frustrate the law relating to limitations completely.

8) The Credit Application provided in the court bundle should provide a timeframe of when a creditor can seek court action on a debt that is defaulted, unfortunately the credit application provided is unreadable therefore, illegible.

9) The Limitation period starts from the cause of action. This means that when the creditor would be able to take court action for not paying and should be after 1 or 2 missed payments, certainly the cause of action should not begin with a default notice 8 months after the last missed payment.

10) The cause of action is when payment was not made on the account and the creditor should of taken action, in line with MBNA credit card statement dated 18th March 2009.

11) Under the consumer credit agreements time starts to run from the date of default. The default and accrual of cause of action will occur when the creditor could have first taken action. This can only be precisely determined by checking the terms and conditions of the original agreement to see how many missed payments have elapsed. If the agreement does not specify you could conclude that it will be after the first payment became due.

12) A letter was sent to the claimant’s solicitor on the 26th May 2015 informing them that the debt was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1980 and that they are no longer able to take court action against me to recover the alleged amount claimed.

The regulatory Debt Collection Guidance that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred could amount to harassment contrary to section5 (1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970”.

14) In Claimants letter dated 4th June 2015, and the only defence that the claimant presents is that the cause of action accrued when the default notice is served. I strongly disagree with this claim, as the default notice was issued after over 8 months of missed payments and the debt defaulted after the first missed payment.

15) In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial and that the Claimant’s application for summary judgment against me should be dismissed.

[Old Cogger]

Need to space between each sentence suggested as it looks all clumped up to-gether.

[AndyOrch]

Claimants Witness statement brought forward.

 

1 - 9 Irrelevant

WITNESS STATEMENT

 

 

1. I am employed by the Claimant as a legal & compliance officer and i am duly authorised to make the witness statement on the claimants behalf. I make this statement in support of the claimants application for summary judgement on the defence, pursuant to CPR Rule 24.2(a)(ii), upon the gounds that the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim on the defence. Save where otherwise appears the facts and matters to which i refer in this witness statement are within my knowledge and are true. Where facts and matters to which I refer within this statement are not within my knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, having been supplied to me the claimant MBNAicon Limited (hereinafter referred to as MBNA), Varde Investments (ireland) Limited (hereinafter to as Varde) and Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS Zug Branch (hereinafter referred to as Aktiv).

 

 

2. I have seen the defence filed by the defendant dated 3rd June 2015. The court will also be aware that the claimant has filed and served fully particulars of claim dated 20th Masy 2015 which was served by first class post to the defendant on 21st May 2015. hence the defence now before the court has followed these full particulars.

 

 

3. Before I deal with the defendants pleadings, I believe it may be helpful to take the court through the process so far as it related to the the defendant obtaining credit from MBNA, It will be seen that the claim arises out of a running account agreement dated 20th November 2004.

 

 

4. The defendant completed an application for credit card facilities and submitted this to MBNA dated 20th November 2004. A copy of this application is exhibited along with the terms and conditions applicable at the date of the agreement and which is part of the application form and the terms and conditions applicable at termination. It will be seen this has been signed by the defendant.

 

 

5. Following acceptance by MBNA, the form duty endorsed and the full terms and conditions are sent to the customer who then has the opportunity to cancel the agreement without liability, In this case the defendant then used the card unequivocally demostrating his acceptance of the terms as exhibited.

 

 

6. The defendant continued to use the credit card from the inception of the agreement. I do not produce the entire statements for the account because each month's statement is 3 pages long and include the notification of any changes which might be applicable and thus would be over 360 pages long. I do however exhibit the final statement for the account. I point out that the amount showing on this is exactly the amount for which these proceedings have been issued. In other words there has been no additional interest levied since September 2009. This also means the annual statements provided for under the consumer crediticon act do not need to be provided as nothing altered.

 

 

7. As a result of default by the defendant in makiing instalment payments MBNA served the defendant with a default notice under S87 (1) of the consumer credit act. A copy of this notice is exhibited. The amounts shown is that which was applicable at the date of the notice and the balance now being pursued and as shown on the statement.

 

 

8. Following service of the default notice, MBNA assigned the account to Varde, who in turn assigned the account to Aktiv, who finally assigned the account to the claimant and therefore all rights enjoyed by MBNA under the terms of the credit account, including the right to enforce the agreement were tranfered to Varde and then to Aktiv and then to the claimant. Written notice under S136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 was given separately to the defendant in respect of each account. Copies of the notices of assignment are exhibited as applies.

 

 

9. Aktiv also served the defendant with a default notice on 4th November 2014 and a copy of this is exhibited.

 

 

The Defence

 

 

10. Turning to the defence, I do not agree that the claim is statute barred. Under Clause 5 of the limitation acticon 1980, "an action founded on simple contract shall not be brought after the expiration of six years fro the date on which the casue of action accrued".

 

 

11. The cause of action arose following a default notice being sent to the defendant. The notice required the defendant to remedy the breach of the agreement and identified the consequences of failing to do so. That consequence was termination of the agreement.

 

 

12. Accordingly, the limitation period began to run from when the defendant failed to pay the arrears as demanded and the agreement was terminated. The cause of action arose following failure to comply with the default notice.

 

 

13. The default notice was sent 9th October 2009 and again on 4th November 2014 and accordingly the claim has been brought within the six year time limit and is not statute barred.

 

 

14. For the reasons set out above, I would ask the court to find the defendant has "no real prospect of successfully defending the claim" as provided for under CPR 24.2 and there is no compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial and to enter Summary Judgement in favour of the claimant in the amount sought accordingly together with an award of costs of such judgement, which I would ask the court to summarily assess.

[AndyOrch]

In the XXXXXXXX County Court Claim no. XXXXXXXXX

Defendants Application

 

 

Between:-

 

Claimant XXXXXXXXX

V

 

Defendant XXXXXXXX

 

 

Witness Statement of XXXXXXXXXXX in Response to Application for Summary Judgment

 

 

 

1) This statement is made in opposition to the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and by which the Claimant contends I have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim against me.

 

2) I believe that the debt is on a simple contract and has not been acknowledged or no payment made for at least 6 years and the claimant is barred from enforcing the debt pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980.

 

3) The claimants witness statement does not provide any evidence that the debt was acknowledged or a payment has been made within the last 6 years.

 

4) Attached with this witness statement is an MBNA statement dated 17th February 2009, where a payment was made on the account on the 3rd February 2009.(exhibit x)

 

5) Attached with this witness statement is an MBNA statement dated 18th March 2009, which includes, a statement of defaulted sums “One or more default sums for late, over limit or returned payments, is included in this month’s statement” (exhibit XX)

 

6) Also in the statement dated 18th March 2009 it quite clearly states “Failing to make your minimum payment can mean that you have broken the terms of this credit agreement and could result in us taking legal action against you. It could lead to your having to pay additional costs and make it more difficult for you to obtain credit future in the future”, “Your account facility remains withdrawn”.

 

7) With regards to the default notice exhibited at SRJG1 in the claimants bundle it provides a Default Notice dated 9th October 2009, where the arrears needed to be paid by the 26th October 2009. I wish to draw to the Courts attention the fact that the Default notice was issued 8 months late after the last payment was made on the 3rd February 2009. A creditor is not given any right in law to decide for themselves when the cause of action will begin simply by issuing a default notice. If this was the case, then it would render the limitations Act pointless completely.

 

8) The Credit Application provided in the court bundle should provide a timeframe of when a creditor can seek court action on a debt that is defaulted, unfortunately the credit application provided is unreadable therefore, illegible.

 

9) The Limitation period starts from the cause of action. This means that when the creditor would be able to take court action for not paying and should be after 2/3 missed payments, certainly the cause of action should not begin with a default notice 8 months after the last missed payment.

 

10) The cause of action is when payment was not made on the account and the creditor should of taken action, in line with MBNA credit card statement dated 18th March 2009.

 

11) Under the consumer credit agreements time starts to run from the date of default. The default and accrual of cause of action will occur when the creditor could have first taken action. This can only be precisely determined by checking the terms and conditions of the original agreement to see how many missed payments have elapsed. If the agreement does not specify you could conclude that it will be after the first payment became due.

 

12) A letter was sent to the claimant’s solicitor on the 26th May 2015 informing them that the debt was statute barred under The limitation Act 1980 and that they are no longer able to take court action to recover the amount or any amount claimed.

.

The regulatory debt collection Guidance that “continuing to press for payment after a debtor has stated that they will not be paying a debt because it is statue barred could amount to harassment contrary to Section 40(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

 

14) In Claimants letter dated 4th June 2015, and the only defence that the claimant presents is that the cause of action accrued when the default notice is served. I strongly disagree with this claim, as the default notice was issued after over 8 months of missed payments and the debt defaulted after the first missed payment.

 

15) In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial and that the Claimant’s application for summary judgment against me should be dismissed as the claim and this application are an abuse of process.

 

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

 

Dated this day xxxxxxx

 

Signed xxxxxxx

[johno23]

Thanks Andy

 

 

1) Do i send witness statemet to the solicitor and court now or wait until nearer the 7 days required.

 

 

2) Do they all get sent to the Northampton Court or my local court.

 

 

3) Do I still need to forward the N181 to the court & solicitor, as received prior to the summary judgement.

[AndyOrch]

Thanks Andy

 

 

1) Do i send witness statemet to the solicitor and court now or wait until nearer the 7 days required.Wait a little nearer so they have less time to respond and prepare

 

 

2) Do they all get sent to the Northampton Court or my local court.Court were the hearing will convene

 

 

3) Do I still need to forward the N181 to the court & solicitor, as received prior to the summary judgement.

Yes ...hopefully their application will fail..the claim will resume

 

Andy

[johno23]

Thanks Andy

 

Can I use the following in my witness statement.

 

Swansea City Council v GLASS 1992 2 All ER

 

It is established that the cause of action accrues when the person can sue, that is the point when he can commence a claim for failing to meet a contractual obligation, not when a person serves a notice demanding payment.

[AndyOrch]

I wouldn't ...as it refers to a housing repair problem and the case was brought under The Housing Act

[johno23]

Hi Andy

 

 

please can you comment on a witness statement I received today from the Claimant, in response to my witness statement, regarding summary judgement.

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Claimants Witness Statement in Response to Defendants Reply to the Summary Judgement Application

 

 

1) I am employed by the Claimant as a Legal & Compliance Officer and I am duly authorised to make this witness statement on the Claimant's application for summary judgement on the Defence, pursuant to CPR Rule 24.2(a)(ii), upon the grounds that the Defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim on the Defence and in response to the Defendant's witness statement in reply to the Claimant's summary judgement Application. save where otherwise the facts and matters to which I refer in the witness statement are within my knowledge and are true. Where facts and matters to which I refer within this statement are not within my own knowledge, they are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, having been supplied to me by the Claimant, MBNA Limited (hereinafter referred to as MBNA), Varde Investments (Ireland) Limited (hereinafter referred to as Varde) and Aktiv Kapital.

 

 

2) I have seen the witness statement filed by the Defendant in response to the Claimant's Application for Summary Judgement and will respond below.

 

 

3) It is denied that the Claimant is barred from enforcing the debt pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation's Act 1980. Section 5 of the Limitation's Act 1980 does not allow an action to be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action arose. It is the Claimant's contention that the cause of action arose following a Default Notice being sent to the Defendant to remedy a breach of the Agreement he had with MBNA, which has been through various assignments, finally assignment to the Claimant. My first witness statement, dated 22nd June 2015, in support of the Claimant's Application for Summary Judgement details the background to the claim and the various assignments.

 

 

4) The Defendant argues that the cause of action accrued when he missed a payment and not when the Default Notice was served. This is denied by the Claimant. Attached as Exhibit SRJG6 is a print out from MBNA case management system which shows that as of September 2009, the account was in dispute. Under the Office of Fair Trading's Debt Collection Guidabce 2006 which prevailed at the relevant time, paragraph 2.6h states that an example of unfair practice is ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment. A copy of the OFT Guidance 2006 is attached as Exhibit SRJG7.

 

 

5) After the Defendant made his final payment in February 2009, he raise a dispute on the account and MBNA had to deal with this dispute meaning they would have to place the account on hold. MBNA's case management notes suggest a final response to his dispute was sent to the Defendant in July 2009 and following this a Default Notice was served in October 2009.

 

 

6) had MBNA continued to pursue the Defendant whilst a dispute had been raised, then they would certainly have been in breach of the OFT Guidance 2006. The regulatory authorities expect creditors to suspend all collection activity pending a final response to a dispute and therefore there was a delay in sending the Default Notice as MBNA could potentially face sanctions for failing to comply with the regulations and guidance set down for creditors.

 

 

7) The cause of action arose when the creditor was able to take action against the Defendant and this was when the period for remedying the default specified in the Default Notice sent tot the Defendant had expired. The claim is not statute barred, having been issued in May 2015, which is 5 years and 7 months since the service of the Default Notice in October 2009 and therefore within the 6 year limitation period.

 

 

8) Notwithstanding the above, failure to pay sums when they are due under the credit agreement does not automatically bring the agreement to an end. This was a running account agreement with no fixed duration or term and it remains in force until the creditor or debtor end it. Section 10 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 defines running account as a facility under a consumer credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled to receive from time to time (whether in his own person, or by another present) from the creditor or a third party cash, good and services (or any of them) to an amount or value such that, taking into account payments made by or to the credit of the debtor, the credit limit (if any) is not at any time exceeded.

 

 

9) Before a Creditor is able to end a running credit agreement, they must send notice unless certain circumstances prevail. This is a matter of contractual provision rather than any requirements under the Consumer Credit Act and is designed to prevent, for example, unauthorised use of the credit card account. In the case of non-employment, they must send a Default Notice before any steps forward enforcement of the Agreement can be taken. Therefore no legal action is able to be taken until the Default Notice has been served and the time limit for compliance by the debtor has passed.

 

 

10) The Defendant has raised various comments regarding the time limit for service of a Default Notice in his witness statement. The requirement to send a Default Notice to a defaulting debtor is imposed upon creditors by S.87(1) of the consumer credit act, and S.88 of the act sets out what is to be included in the Default Notice. I have inspected both sections of the act and I can find nothing which suggests that any time frame within which a default notice must be sent is prescribed by the act. I am aware of regulatory guidance on this topic issued by the information commissioners office which suggests time frames for sending default notices, but as I have said earlier MBNA were precluded from taking any action in relation to the Defendant's account until such time as any dispute had been resolved.

 

 

11) At paragraph 6 of the Defendant's witness statement, he states that the statement dated 18th March 2009, sent by MBNA stated your account facility remains withdrawn. Section 87(2) of the consumer credit act 1974 states that not serving a default notice does not prevent the creditor from treating the right to draw upon any credit as restricted or deferred, and taking steps as may be necessary to make the restriction or deferment effective. Therefore, the creditor was able to withdraw the Defendant's credit facility before serving a default notice. The withdrawal did not automatically result in the Claimant being able to take legal action, as I said earlier MBNA was required to send a default notice before either they or the claimant were able to take legal action and therefore it was the Defendant's failure with the terms of the Default Notice that gave rise to the cause of action accruing.

 

 

12) Furthermore it is denied that the defendant has not acknowledged the debt, Attached of SRGJ8 is a trail of emails between myself and the Defendant in May 2014 whereby the Defandant has not raised a dispute that the amount is not outstanding.

 

 

13) Notwithstanding the fact that the debt is not statute barred by virtue of the cause of action accruing at the date the Default Notice expired, the Defendant has clearly acknowledged the debt in May 2015 and therefore the six year period begins to run again from May 2014.

 

 

14) I note that the Defendant has produced a letter from the Claimant's solicitors dated 4th June 2015. This was not the last correspondence in this matter and the Defendant wrote to the Claimant's solicitor responded in detail on 15th June 2015 explaining why the Claimant believes the claim is not statute barred. A copy of both those letters is attached at Exhibit SRJG9.

 

 

15) For the reasons set out above and in my witness statement dated 22nd June 2015 I would ask the court to find the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim as provided for under CPR 24.2 and there is no compelling reason why the case should of been disposed of at a trial and to enter summary judgement in favour of the Claimant in the amount sought accordingly together with an award of costs of such judgement, which I would ask the court to summarily assess.

[dx100uk]

As far as I am aware a dispute has never stopped a creditor issuing a dn before?

 

A dn is not a demand for payment??

It's simply a notice informing the debtor that by xyz date

If the stated sum is not paid a default could be registered.

 

The rest of that ws is just STD waffle...

 

Dx

[AndyOrch]

Okay Johno as stated standard waffle to pad the statement out...and why they need to submit 2 statements on a SJ application is incomprehensible ?

 

The following salient points are all that is needed to review and focus on....

 

5) After the Defendant made his final payment in February 2009, he raise a dispute on the account and MBNA had to deal with this dispute meaning they would have to place the account on hold. MBNA's case management notes suggest a final response to his dispute was sent to the Defendant in July 2009 and following this a Default Notice was served in October 2009.

 

7) The cause of action arose when the creditor was able to take action against the Defendant and this was when the period for remedying the default specified in the Default Notice sent to the Defendant had expired. The claim is not statute barred, having been issued in May 2015, which is 5 years and 7 months since the service of the Default Notice in October 2009 and therefore within the 6 year limitation period.

 

 

So in effect because you raised a dispute after your last payment February 2009...(did you?) It took MBNA 5 months to investigate and respond (July 2009) it then took them a further 3 months to issued the Default Notice...therefore dragging the cause of action out and elongating it by 5 months.

 

The claim is statute barred...the creditor cannot delay the Notice by 5 months.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[johno23]

Thanks Andy

 

I did not raise a dispute in July 2009, but asked for my credit agreement in a S78/79 in October 2008.

 

They have provided no correspondence between me and MBNA in a dispute.

 

How do I respond do I need to do another witness statement tomorrow.

 

Really worried about court now, 12th August

 

Thanks

[AndyOrch]

" I did not raise a dispute in July 2009, but asked for my credit agreement in a S78/79 in October 2008."

 

Even better...just shows you how a statement of truth is not truthful

 

No you dont need to do a further one....neither did they...they are trying to unnerve you.

 

Dont worry about court...dentists is far worse:wink:

[johno23]

What will happen at court, will I be put under the cosh, worried if lose will have to pay interest and there costs

 

Thanks again

[AndyOrch]

If you hadn't defended you would have had to pay interest and costs...plus a CCJ to boot for 6 years......at least your fighting back.

[johno23]

So what happens in court also will they take there second witness statement, feels unfair as responded to there witness statement then they produce another

 

Thanks

[AndyOrch]

Im fairly sure the DJ will be a confused as me...that he claimant has submitted 2 witness statements in support of their application for summary judgment......smacks of desperation.

 

In court you state " last payment February 2009...claim issued May 2015 that's 6 years and 3 months Sir and pursuant to Section 5 of the Limitation's Act 1980 does not allow an action to be brought after the expiration of six years.I did not raise a dispute as per the witness statement but the claimant failed to serve a Default Notice in the accepted time after a breach and guidelines of the ICO. IE 5 months late.There was no dispute raised that tact has been created by the witness to create and elongate the time line to enable it claim within the period."

 

Regards

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

love it:lol:

 

andyorch at his best

 

dx

[panther12]

So in a nutshell they say that the OFT guidance prevented them from commencing legal action until such time that a complaint has been investigated and therefore extending the Limitation clock. When did "guidance" overrule statute? The oft's guidance is simply that - "Guidance" intended to protect consumers not as a means for creditors to change statute law whenever it suits them to the detriment of the consumer.

 

This guidance is not designed to be a comprehensive checklist of behaviour. Nor

are we advising on best practice or a code of practice. The guidance outlines unfair

practices with illustrative examples. The examples given are based on OFT

complaint information and issues brought to our attention by organisations

representing consumers, business and other regulators.

It might be worth contacting/email the OFT to see if you could get something in writing on their views of a creditor attempting to use OFT guidance as a means to disregard statute and extend the limitation clock.

[AndyOrch]

So in a nutshell they say that the OFT guidance prevented them from commencing legal action until such time that a complaint has been investigated and therefore extending the Limitation clock. When did "guidance" overrule statute? The oft's guidance is simply that - "Guidance" intended to protect consumers not as a means for creditors to change statute law whenever it suits them to the detriment of the consumer.

 

It might be worth contacting/email the OFT to see if you could get something in writing on their views of a creditor attempting to use OFT guidance as a means to disregard statute and extend the limitation clock.

 

There was no complaint raised.....that fact has been created to get around the delay in issuing the default notice....to suit their second witness statement

[Guest]

...smacks of desperation...

Regards

 

Andy

 

ditto

and in any event, imo, re credit card, bar doesn't necessarily run from the date of a default notice. it runs from the breach complained of, ie when in breach. the breach complained of, to me, is the cause of the action.

[johno23]

In court Weds, any final advice?

[Capricorn1601]

Thanks Andy

 

 

Regarding an update.

 

 

I have received last week a letter from the claimaints solicitor giving me 14 dyas to accept there draft directions.

 

 

They are:-

 

 

1) The claim is allocated to fast track.

2) Disclosure of documents shall be dealt with as follows

a) Both parties shall give each other standard disclosure by list, the lists to be served at 4pm on 21st August 2015.

b) Any request for a copy, or inspection, of any document shall be complied with by 4pm on the 4th September 2015.

3) Both parties shall, by 4pm on 2nd October, serve the witness statements of all witnesses (other than expert witnesses) on whom the party intends to rely including the partys own statement.

4) The parties may not rely on or adduce the evidence of any witness whose statement has not been served in accordance with this order without further permission form the court.

5) Completed pre-trial checklists shall be sent to the court by 4pm on 13th November 2015.

6) The claim shall be listed for trial during the trial window from MOnday 30th November 2015 - Friday 11th December inclusive with a time estimate of two hours.

 

 

At present they say I have 14 days to agree or amend the draft directions, I have recently sent a letter under CPR 31.14 asking for documents including a credit agrement which is legite as the one they sent is unreadable, providing them with 7 days for these documents.

 

 

Please can someone advise on what I should do regarding draft directions from the claimant.

 

 

I have also received a letter from the court informing me that the court has been moved to my home town.

 

 

thanks in advance!

 

how come you are in court sooner than specified above?

[Guest]

home you are in court sooner than specified above?

 

 

post #27, re summary judgment hearing