Here's the story: I have a pending small claims case regarding non-payment of a loan - I am the plaintiff asking for the amount of missed payments to date.
The situation is (appears) simple: I have a signed "loan contract", written acknowledgement from the defendant that she does owe me money, about 6 months of payment checks from the defendant, and a letter where she claims "she has paid what she owes and I will have to sue for the remainder".
Looking for advice on how to present my case in court. I could just provide the above story and documentation, but I am sure the defendant will try to invalidate what I have by going back in time.
So the long story: Defendant and I were good friends for many years; I lent her various sums of money over time, with a verbal acknowledgment she'd pay it back. I kept track of every outflow, and she regularly made small payments to keep the balance down. We always both acknowledged there was an outstanding balance and the record I had was what she owed.
When we decided to part ways, we agreed a written & signed contract for the balance owed was in order. She agreed to pay the balance of what I had on record. The contract simply states "she has received sum of $XXXX dollars from me and agrees to pay back at $XX per month for next X years". It speaks nothing about when or how the money transferred hands or what is was used for. The contract does specifically state "(she) acknowledges receipt of $XXXX".
I see these as my options:
1) I present the loan contract, the to date payments, the acknowledgement of the debt and the letter saying "sue me". The defendant will then likely go into all the detail on how I lent her money for things she didn't want, that I bought things on her behalf then added them to her balance, that I didn't keep an accurate balance sheet, etc. I'll then need to refute all that with further backup evidence showing how the $XXXX was established to begin with - too much drama.
or 2) I start off with the whole story, showing the accumulation of $XXXX over time + pages of receipts and notes I have documenting that, finally showing the agreed to contract for sum of $XXXX and failure to repay as written.
I would rather not go into all the backstory - as it detracts from the solidity and purpose of the written contract. But knowing the defendant will try to embellish what happened before the contract, should I bring that up first (option 2), or go with option 1 and just try to keep it simple? Would I be better off bring up the past before the defendant, or not at all?
Maybe asked another way - does it matter how a $ value for a contract was arrived? If she signed a contract saying "you have given me $XXXX", is there any legal ground to stand on with her saying that the $XXXX figure is incorrect, or not what she wanted, or not what she agreed to, etc?
Again, I'd really like to keep it as simple as "here is our contract, here is the sum of delinquent payments which I am asking for". Do I even need to worry about anything that happened before the contract?
The situation is (appears) simple: I have a signed "loan contract", written acknowledgement from the defendant that she does owe me money, about 6 months of payment checks from the defendant, and a letter where she claims "she has paid what she owes and I will have to sue for the remainder".
Looking for advice on how to present my case in court. I could just provide the above story and documentation, but I am sure the defendant will try to invalidate what I have by going back in time.
So the long story: Defendant and I were good friends for many years; I lent her various sums of money over time, with a verbal acknowledgment she'd pay it back. I kept track of every outflow, and she regularly made small payments to keep the balance down. We always both acknowledged there was an outstanding balance and the record I had was what she owed.
When we decided to part ways, we agreed a written & signed contract for the balance owed was in order. She agreed to pay the balance of what I had on record. The contract simply states "she has received sum of $XXXX dollars from me and agrees to pay back at $XX per month for next X years". It speaks nothing about when or how the money transferred hands or what is was used for. The contract does specifically state "(she) acknowledges receipt of $XXXX".
I see these as my options:
1) I present the loan contract, the to date payments, the acknowledgement of the debt and the letter saying "sue me". The defendant will then likely go into all the detail on how I lent her money for things she didn't want, that I bought things on her behalf then added them to her balance, that I didn't keep an accurate balance sheet, etc. I'll then need to refute all that with further backup evidence showing how the $XXXX was established to begin with - too much drama.
or 2) I start off with the whole story, showing the accumulation of $XXXX over time + pages of receipts and notes I have documenting that, finally showing the agreed to contract for sum of $XXXX and failure to repay as written.
I would rather not go into all the backstory - as it detracts from the solidity and purpose of the written contract. But knowing the defendant will try to embellish what happened before the contract, should I bring that up first (option 2), or go with option 1 and just try to keep it simple? Would I be better off bring up the past before the defendant, or not at all?
Maybe asked another way - does it matter how a $ value for a contract was arrived? If she signed a contract saying "you have given me $XXXX", is there any legal ground to stand on with her saying that the $XXXX figure is incorrect, or not what she wanted, or not what she agreed to, etc?
Again, I'd really like to keep it as simple as "here is our contract, here is the sum of delinquent payments which I am asking for". Do I even need to worry about anything that happened before the contract?
Collection Lawsuits: How to Prove the Balance of a Debt Still Owed in a Small Claims Case
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire