Hi. If I could just give you some info, maybe I'm missing something. My husbands ex-landlord took us to court 2 weeks ago. Back in June 09' she had stopped cashing my husbands rent checks that were written from my accout (my maiden name). She had held June, July, August and September rent checks. She would never answer our calls to see what the issue was. In March 2010, she took my husband to court for unpaid rent because by this time, he had just stopped paying. She got a judgement against him for unpaid rent Oct 09'- march 10'. She had my 4 checks still at this time for June-Sept. Once the judgement went against him, she had tried to cash my checks which by this time were passed the bank policy (they were stale-dated). So now she takes us back to court and tries to sue me under my maiden name and my husband for unpaid rent. Long story short, we had a mediator and came to an agreement that my husband was responsible for the total amount. Just a note to add, my name was never on any lease agreement, only his. So they settled on an amount with me taken completely off the complaint. They dismissed me with prejudice on July 29, 2010. August 16, they levied my accounts and wiped me clean-- $9000. Left me with pennies compared to what they took. I sat in court for about 8 hours trying to get to the bottom of this. Nobody understood how this could have happened being that I was dismissed with prejudice 3 weeks prior. I don't know if the court screwed up, or she was trying to pull a fast one, or maybe she knew someone. I don't know. I sat and saw the judge in the morning and then again in the afternoon. He kept insisting that I had a judgement against me until I showed him the settlement paper which he overlooked in the morning session. He then looked a little concerned and scheduled an emergency hearing because he said he couldn't lift the levy unless all parties were present. He looked a little mad after he saw that paper. Almost like he was mad at the ex-landlord for being sneaky or maybe in his hearts of hearts he realized that someone in house screwed up but I know that they would never admit that.. So here I am, with a 14 month old baby, no money and husband who's going back to school. He knows he has to pay her and he had already agreed to it, but 3 weeks is a short time to come up with 8000. I just don't understand how they levied me If I was dismissed with prejudice--- I'm sorry to go on and on... I just need all the help that I can get... and believe me, it's appreciated... Also, if they were to change judgement, wouldn't I would've had to have been notified to appear again?

Hi. If I could just give you some info, maybe I'm missing something. My husbands ex-landlord took us to court 2 weeks ago. Back in June 09' she had stopped cashing my husbands rent checks that were written from my accout (my maiden name). She had held June, July, August and September rent checks.
Why would she not cash them? Who has the checks now? Do you have duplicates showing when they were written? Was your husband already behind in rent when she stopped cashing the checks?


She would never answer our calls to see what the issue was. In March 2010, she took my husband to court for unpaid rent because by this time, he had just stopped paying.
That was your first mistake. If you sent her a check, it was her duty to cash it. If you didn't send a check, then she is very much within reason to sue you.


She got a judgement against him for unpaid rent Oct 09'- march 10'. She had my 4 checks still at this time for June-Sept. Once the judgement went against him, she had tried to cash my checks which by this time were passed the bank policy (they were stale-dated).
I'm surprised by this; I thought checks could be cashed up to one year from the date they were written. Very bizarre...


So now she takes us back to court and tries to sue me under my maiden name and my husband for unpaid rent. Long story short, we had a mediator and came to an agreement that my husband was responsible for the total amount. Just a note to add, my name was never on any lease agreement, only his. So they settled on an amount with me taken completely off the complaint. They dismissed me with prejudice on July 29, 2010. August 16, they levied my accounts and wiped me clean-- $9000. Left me with pennies compared to what they took. I sat in court for about 8 hours trying to get to the bottom of this. Nobody understood how this could have happened being that I was dismissed with prejudice 3 weeks prior. I don't know if the court screwed up, or she was trying to pull a fast one, or maybe she knew someone. I don't know.
Your name was removed from the judgment, which is fine - but was your husband's name on the bank account? If it was a joint account, then she can absolutely garnish the account.


I sat and saw the judge in the morning and then again in the afternoon. He kept insisting that I had a judgement against me until I showed him the settlement paper which he overlooked in the morning session. He then looked a little concerned and scheduled an emergency hearing because he said he couldn't lift the levy unless all parties were present. He looked a little mad after he saw that paper. Almost like he was mad at the ex-landlord for being sneaky or maybe in his hearts of hearts he realized that someone in house screwed up but I know that they would never admit that.. So here I am, with a 14 month old baby, no money and husband who's going back to school. He knows he has to pay her and he had already agreed to it, but 3 weeks is a short time to come up with 8000. I just don't understand how they levied me If I was dismissed with prejudice--- I'm sorry to go on and on... I just need all the help that I can get... and believe me, it's appreciated... Also, if they were to change judgement, wouldn't I would've had to have been notified to appear again?
Now you're really confusing me. You say she took $9,000 out of your account, and now say your husband still owes $8,000. How much was rent each month??

I'm confused as to what happened as well. The judge makes the ruling - he would have been at the original hearing when you were dismissed.

The more I think about this, I wonder if you weren't completely dismissed - I've seen cases been left open on a deferred payment agreement and if the defendant defaults on the payments, then the judgment will be placed against them. I'm wondering if you're in the same situation.

First, when a writ of execution is served on a bank, the bank first freezes the account for a period. The money is not transferred to the judgment holder until after that period (which may vary by locality) has expired. So, if you acted immediately and got the judge to rescind the writ, then the bank should have lifted the freeze.

Its entirely possible that the landlady did pull a fast one and applied for the writ hoping the dismissal would not have been recorded yet, which is probably what happened.

However, if the account was a joint account with your husband, then the writ would have been valid.

Finally, while I can understand your husband stopping making rent payments, what he should have done is put the rent aside in a separate account for when the landlady woke up.

Even though the checks were stale, the money should still have been in the account.

Why would she not cash them? Who has the checks now? Do you have duplicates showing when they were written? Was your husband already behind in rent when she stopped cashing the checks?


That was your first mistake. If you sent her a check, it was her duty to cash it. If you didn't send a check, then she is very much within reason to sue you.
We sent checks june-sept. She never cashed them. She attempted to cash them 10 months later. My bank policy is 180 days.


I'm surprised by this; I thought checks could be cashed up to one year from the date they were written. Very bizarre...
!80 days was my bank policy


Your name was removed from the judgment, which is fine - but was your husband's name on the bank account? If it was a joint account, then she can absolutely garnish the account.
I was dismissed with prejudice. The account was only mine, still under my maiden name. I've had that account for 10 yrs


Now you're really confusing me. You say she took $9,000 out of your account, and now say your husband still owes $8,000. How much was rent each month???
The settlement was for $8000. The courts levied almost $9000.

I'm confused as to what happened as well. The judge makes the ruling - he would have been at the original hearing when you were dismissed.
We had a mediator and settled outside of the court room and then the judge said, you guys settled- you can all go

The more I think about this, I wonder if you weren't completely dismissed - I've seen cases been left open on a deferred payment agreement and if the defendant defaults on the payments, then the judgment will be placed against them. I'm wondering if you're in the same situation.
I was dismissed with prejudice. It was only 10 work days when they levied. They didn't even give him a chance to make a payment. The plaintiff had since moved since the last court date.
I had the emergency hearing today in which the plaintiff did not show. Now I have to go back again tomorrow to have a hearing with the court officer who levied my $.

To the above member this8384: To answer the top quote which I had skipped--Honestly, I feel she was trying to foreclose bc she got way in over her head. She has the checks. She said she held them and that a worker would check to make sure the monies were there, which it was. I do have duplicates from my check book. My husband was not behind in rent when she decided to stop cashing them. Today, she did not show up in court

First, when a writ of execution is served on a bank, the bank first freezes the account for a period of time. The money is not transferred to the judgment holder until after that period (which may vary by locality) has expired. So, if you acted immediately and got the judge to rescind the writ, then the bank should have lifted the freeze.They freeze it for 21 days. The court clerks were saying that the settlement paper has to go from person A to B to C just say. They stated that it looks like it skipped person A and B and went right to C.

Its entirely possible that the landlady did pull a fast one and applied for the writ hoping the dismissal would not have been recorded yet, which is probably what happened.

However, if the account was a joint account with your husband, then the writ would have been valid.This account was mine only. He has never been on this account. EVER! It was still in my maiden name

Finally, while I can understand your husband stopping making rent payments, what he should have done is put the rent aside in a separate account for when the landlady woke up. He did put rent monies aside, maybe not all of it. He had lost his job so he took that money to live on- he then got evicted.

Even though the checks were stale, the money should still have been in the account.The money was there the whole time until recently when he needed it to live on. He would give me the $ and I would write him a check. 4 checks later at a 180 days a piece they were no good. I gave him his $ back. My accounts were only mine. I did what I had to do to make sure my daughter was taken care of. They wiped my out and I wasn't even supposed to be on that paper. I was never on any lease with this woman-- I'm still so confused as to how this happened... :(:confused:

I was dismissed with prejudice. It was only 10 work days when they levied. They didn't even give him a chance to make a payment. The plaintiff had since moved since the last court date.
I had the emergency hearing today in which the plaintiff did not show. Now I have to go back again tomorrow to have a hearing with the court officer who levied my $.

Now you're really not making sense. Yes, you meet with a mediator to see if you can settle without a trial - that doesn't mean that you just go home afterwards. Your settlement gets read into the court record so that there is no room for screw-ups.

It sounds as if you being dismissed was not put onto the record, so garnished your account. They don't have to "give him a chance to make a payment" - he had ample opportunity to pay prior to the judgment being placed.

You say the judgment amount was $8,000 but that $9,000 was taken out of your account - your state may allow for the plaintiff to be reimbursed for filing fees, attorney fees, etc.

I think the state does allow. But the whole this is, is that was my account only. Not his. It was done the same day the judgement was made. It wasn't done 2 or 3 days later. Am I really in the wrong here?

I think the state does allow. But the whole this is, is that was my account only. Not his. It was done the same day the judgement was made. It wasn't done 2 or 3 days later. Am I really in the wrong here?

I wouldn't say you're "in the wrong" but on the other hand, your husband didn't pay his rent - that is wrong.

I think the court screwed up when they didn't dismiss you as a defendant and that allowed the landlady to garnish your account. I don't think she did anything back-handed or illegal because even you said that the court still had you listed on the case.

I guess I'm really not understanding where the confusion is at this point. The landlady was paid - your husband made a settlement agreement with her, which means he would have had the money to pay if your account hadn't been garnished. So why can't he just make payments back into the account that the money was originally taken from?

Do you and your husband not have joint finances? I think that's what's really confusing me. You have a separate checking account but were paying bills for him from an account with only your name on it for a lease with only his name on it... that just makes no sense at all.

I wouldn't say you're "in the wrong" but on the other hand, your husband didn't pay his rent - that is wrong.

I think the court screwed up when they didn't dismiss you as a defendant and that allowed the landlady to garnish your account. I don't think she did anything back-handed or illegal because even you said that the court still had you listed on the case.

I guess I'm really not understanding where the confusion is at this point. The landlady was paid - your husband made a settlement agreement with her, which means he would have had the money to pay if your account hadn't been garnished. So why can't he just make payments back into the account that the money was originally taken from?

Do you and your husband not have joint finances? I think that's what's really confusing me. You have a separate checking account but were paying bills for him from an account with only your name on it for a lease with only his name on it....that just makes no sense at all.
HWe do not have any joint finances. He agreed to make payments to her. There were no terms as to how, how much, when etc... He's not avoiding it. I only wrote a few checks for him in the past. He would give me the $ and I would write the check. He then lost his job and just recently got back on track. He used the $ from the rent to live on. We know he owes. I just feel that I was violated by them going into my accounts wiping me clean when I do the right thing. I have nothing now. I have a 14 mo old daughter to care for. I'm not asking for pitty, but 9000. is a lot to take at once for someone who is trying to take care of everything-- That's the whole reason he settled on making payments. Not a one lump sum from my account. :(

OK, So the courts screwed up by issuing the writ of execution incorrectly. So you go to the court, show the dismissal, point out that the account was in your name only, get the writ rescinded and go to your bank and have them release the freeze.

Granted this is an inconvenience, but the freeze should have been lifted by now.

HWe do not have any joint finances. He agreed to make payments to her. There were no terms as to how, how much, when etc... He's not avoiding it. I only wrote a few checks for him in the past. He would give me the $ and I would write the check. He then lost his job and just recently got back on track. He used the $ from the rent to live on. We know he owes. I just feel that I was violated by them going into my accounts wiping me clean when I do the right thing. I have nothing now. I have a 14 mo old daughter to care for. I'm not asking for pitty, but 9000. is a lot to take at once for someone who is trying to take care of everything-- That's the whole reason he settled on making payments. Not a one lump sum from my account. :(

So then he agreed to a judgment being placed against him. If there was nothing discussed about how often, how much, etc. then yes, I would also go after your account if I was the landlady.

Yes, $9,000 is a lot of money for anyone - you have a baby, the landlady has a mortgage. We all have our own responsibilities in life.

And the more I think about this, I don't see why you should have been dismissed. You said he gave you the rent money, and you wrote the checks to the landlady which didn't get cashed - so where is the rent money? In YOUR account. I don't see why you feel you were violated because someone got their own money back.

OK, So the courts screwed up by issuing the writ of execution incorrectly. So you go to the court, show the dismissal, point out that the account was in your name only, get the writ rescinded and go to your bank and have them release the freeze.

Granted this is an inconvenience, but the freeze should have been lifted by now.

Thank you so much for taking the time to go back and forth with me. I just don't see why the plaintiff wouldn't show up for an emergency hearing?? Makes me wonder:confused:

OK, So the courts screwed up by issuing the writ of execution incorrectly. So you go to the court, show the dismissal, point out that the account was in your name only, get the writ rescinded and go to your bank and have them release the freeze.

Granted this is an inconvenience, but the freeze should have been lifted by now.

I don't think she's worried about the freeze as much as getting "her" money back... but I could be wrong.

I don't think she's worried about the freeze as much as getting "her" money back....but I could be wrong.

But the freeze was placed on 8/16, according to her the bank holds the funds for 21 days. Therefore the funds were not transferred to the plaintiff (or shouldn't have been) and she should have gotten a rescind order and the funds released by now.

So then he agreed to a judgment being placed against him. If there was nothing discussed about how often, how much, etc. then yes, I would also go after your account if I was the landlady.

Yes, $9,000 is a lot of money for anyone - you have a baby, the landlady has a mortgage. We all have our own responsibilities in life.

And the more I think about this, I don't see why you should have been dismissed. You said he gave you the rent money, and you wrote the checks to the landlady which didn't get cashed - so where is the rent money? In YOUR account. I don't see why you feel you were violated because someone got their own money back.
I understand what you mean. Why do you think the landlord didn't show up today for an emergency hearing today without notifying the court?

So then he agreed to a judgment being placed against him. If there was nothing discussed about how often, how much, etc. then yes, I would also go after your account if I was the landlady.

Yes, $9,000 is a lot of money for anyone - you have a baby, the landlady has a mortgage. We all have our own responsibilities in life.

And the more I think about this, I don't see why you should have been dismissed. You said he gave you the rent money, and you wrote the checks to the landlady which didn't get cashed - so where is the rent money? In YOUR account. I don't see why you feel you were violated because someone got their own money back.
I was dismissed from the case. She signed off on it. That wasn't my lease or back rent. It was his. They made the agreement, not me. He did use the money to live on. The money was given back to him after she did not cash the checks.

Could be she knew she would be reamed for requesting a writ after you were dismissed. So did you get the order rescinded? Has the bank lifted the freeze?

You might have a countersuit against the plaintiff for any expenses and damages you incurred as a result of the freeze.

I was dismissed from the case. She signed off on it. That wasn't my lease or back rent. It was his. They made the agreement, not me. He did use the money to live on. The money was given back to him after she did not cash the checks.

The bottom line is everyone here seems to have screwed up - your husband, you, the landlady, and even the courts. Nobody is doing what they should and they're all pointing fingers at everyone else.

I don't believe the plaintiff needs to appear if all you're trying to do is get your name taken off the judgment.

Could be she knew she would be reamed for requesting a writ after you were dismissed. So did you get the order rescinded? Has the bank lifted the freeze?

You might have a countersuit against the plaintiff for any expenses and damages you incurred as a result of the freeze.
The judge was very nice to me today. However, he did not lift the levy. He scheduled another emergency hearing for tomorrow for the court officer who levied the account to come in so we can get to the bottom of this. I'm now losing days of work and $. I'm not even worried on that. I just want the levy lifted so I can pay my own bills and finally sleep. If it seems to be dragging and dragging out, then maybe. I know that this seems discombobulated :o but I can't seem to understand how they can go into someone's account that is not on any lease or does not owe back rent, and just take all the money they have. I work hard for the little bit that I have. I save my own money to pay my bills and talke care of my daughter. There was no joint account anywhere ever. UUUUUUhhhhhggg---I need a beverage :)

The bottom line is everyone here seems to have screwed up - your husband, you, the landlady, and even the courts. Nobody is doing what they should and they're all pointing fingers at everyone else.

I don't believe the plaintiff needs to appear if all you're trying to do is get your name taken off the judgment.
The judge ordered her to appear. My name was already taken off and the judge saw that. That's when he called an emergency hearing. She didn't show up, for whatever reason. The judge wanted her to be there and she wasn't

The judge was very nice to me today. However, he did not lift the levy. He scheduled another emergency hearing for tomorrow for the court officer who levied the account to come in so we can get to the bottom of this. I'm now losing days of work and $. I'm not even worried on that. I just want the levy lifted so I can pay my own bills and finally sleep. If it seems to be dragging and dragging out, then maybe. I know that this seems discombobulated :o but I can't seem to understand how they can go into someone's account that is not on any lease or does not owe back rent, and just take all the money they have. I work hard for the little bit that I have. I save my own money to pay my bills and talke care of my daughter. There was no joint account anywhere ever. UUUUUUhhhhhggg---I need a beverage :)

By the way, the magenta color is kind of hard to read.

If the judge was truly being nice to you, he would have immediately lifted the levy so you could get at your funds. At tomorrow's hearing don't leave without an order rescinding the writ.

I can understand the judge wanting to get to the bottom of what happened. But, unless the judge thinks you are presenting a phony dismissal, he should rescind the writ.

The bottom line here is someone in the courthouse screwed up. They were either not aware of the dismissal or ignored it. The plaintiff may have gambled on them not being aware.

By the way, the magenta color is kinda hard to read.

If the judge was truly being nice to you, he would have immediately lifted the levy so you could get at your funds. At tomorrow's hearing don't leave without an order rescinding the writ.

I can understand the judge wanting to get to the bottom of what happened. But, unless the judge thinks you are presenting a phony dismissal, he should rescind the writ.

The bottom line here is someone in the courthouse screwed up. They were either not aware of the dismissal or ignored it. The plaintiff may have gambled on them not being aware.
Sorry about the magenta. :) He said he can't lift the levy until both parties are present. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. Then he scheduled another emergency hearing with the officer who put the levy on my acct. All of our signatures were on the settlement paper. Why would she agree to one thing and go the same day and do another? If that were the case, why settle? Last week I had given the judge months of bank statements showing it has been my account only and I didn't take him off because he had gotten a judgement against him. He was never on. I also gave him a copy of the settlement and the paper stating the funds were levied. He then changed his mind because earlier he told me to get a motion to dismiss the levy. Then when he looked at the settlement paper and saw I was off, he looked a little mad and scheduled today's hearing which she didn't show. So the 2nd one is tom.

He may be trying to cover himself by not rescinding without all parties present, but I doubt if his hands are tied that way.Tell him tmmw that you need access to your money plus the 21 days are going to expire. And that you need the writ rescinded. She can't jam up the wheels of justice by not showing up.

Someone let me know when half the post isn't in fuschia - tried to read but it burned my eyeballs out!

He may be trying to cover himself by not rescinding without all parties present, but I doubt if his hands are tied that way.Tell him tmmw that you need access to your money plus the 21 days are going to expire. And that you need the writ rescinded. She can't jam up the wheels of justice by not showing up.
I will do that. Thanks. Do I sound crazy though, honestly :confused:

i will do that. thanks. do i sound crazy tho, honestly :confused:

No you don't sound crazy at all. But mistakes happen. In my mind the real question is whether the landlady tried to pull a fast one by filing for the writ before your dismissal could be field properly.

But that is not your ultimate concern. Releasing your funds should be your primary issue. Once that's done, you can then see if this was an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court decision.

No you don't sound crazy at all. But mistakes happen. In my mind the real question is whether the landlady tried to pull a fast one by filing for the writ before your dismissal could be field properly.

But that is not your ultimate concern. Releasing your funds should be your primary issue. Once that's done, you can then see if this was an honest mistake or a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court decision.

That is definitely my concern. And I completely understood what the other member was saying, although harsh. I didn't owe the money. I was never legally bound to this person with contracts or lease agreements. I just felt it odd that happened if I was taken off. Do you feel the judge should lift it tom?

Someone let me know when half the post isn't in fuschia - tried to read but it burned my eyeballs out!
Sorry about the pink... :o Did you read my original post?

Yes, I did and some of what followed - I think both Scott and This8384 are dead on.

Sounds like a complicated mess/mistake to me. I'd focus on getting the money back and then try to determine if this was deliberate, a fast one, whatever.

Yes, I did and some of what followed - I think both Scott and This8384 are dead on.

Sounds like a complicated mess/mistake to me. I'd focus on getting the money back and then try to determine if this was deliberate, a fast one, whatever.
Thanks for your answer. I appreciate it. Tom is the 2nd emergency hearing that the judge ordered. Today was the 1st and the plaintiff didn't show... Hmmm. Makes me wonder a little bit :confused:

Makes me wonder a lot - and I wonder if the Court is wondering, too.

If she doesn't show tomorrow I'd ask the Court about penalizing her for taking up your time and energy - sometimes the Court will take a stand.

Makes me wonder a lot - and I wonder if the Court is wondering, too.

If she doesn't show tomorrow I'd ask the Court about penalizing her for taking up your time and energy - sometimes the Court will take a stand.
The judge actually said today, huh, she's not here.. Then he said well, come in tomorrow and I'll order the court officer who put the levy on to be here. So I don't know if they try to contact her or maybe the levy guy does, if they do at all... I figured today was the day to prove her case and she didn't show. If it were me who didn't show, they'd rule in the plaintiff's favor, I'm sure...

As Judy said, ask the judge to penalize her for wasting the court's time and yours. And also to lift the levy because of the hardships its causing you.

As Judy said, ask the judge to penalize her for wasting the court's time and yours. And also to lift the levy because of the hardships its causing you.

Can you believe I'm still sitting here..? :eek: I just wanted to know every angle in case there were some kind of 3 pronged attack on me :eek: Just want to be ready for it. I really do appreciate all that you had posted for me. It's out of my hands. There's not much more I can do. I just keep wondering why she didn't show? Like you said earlier, maybe she didn't want to get reeemded-- or could it be she's got something else up her sleeve...

You may never know - maybe she overslept. Maybe she got bored. That's really nothing to spend time worrying about.

And I think she handed you a "gift" in the form of, "Your Honor, I took time off work and she never showed up."

You may never know - maybe she overslept. Maybe she got bored. That's really nothing to spend time worrying about.

And I think she handed you a "gift" in the form of, "Your Honor, I took time off work and she never showed up."

You're absolutely right. I really appreciate your help. I just wanted to be ready for anything that's thrown on my plate. Im really a good, honest, young lady. I'm not giving myself props- well, maybe a little :) But if it were my debt, I'd say take it. But that's not the case

As Judy said, ask the judge to penalize her for wasting the court's time and yours. And also to lift the levy because of the hardships its causing you.
The judge lifted the levy this morning and said the $ should be there by tues. :) Thanks for your help...

Thank you for coming back and advising "us."

GOOD NEWS INDEED!

Thank you for coming back and advising "us."

GOOD NEWS INDEED!
I really appreciate all of your help. You all set my mind at ease and as nervous as I was this morning, I was confident. At least I think so ;)

This is the second time this had happened. One judge put my money back in my account-- then it happens again and Im waiting for my money--- Leaving me with a child and $0.00 in my account

We need to know the circumstances. Your account can't be levied without a court order. So how was this done wrongfully?

Yes, please explain what type of court order, did you go back to court and get the order over turned,

Why was the money given back the first time, and how long ago was it

Do you remember talking with me back in August? I was dismissed with prejudice from a case and then my account was levied. After a few court dates, and finally getting in touch with the constable, the judge returned my $.Thurs my $ was levied again

Im not sure you you remember me. I'll repost my old stuff from August. This is crazy.

I've merged your threads. You should have just added to the original thread.

What you need to find out is whether this new levy is based on the same case. If it is I would show the bank the previous court order. If it is I would tell them to lift the freeze immediately or you will include them in your suit against the plaintiff. Then I would sue her.

The plaintiff did it the right way this time. The writ clearly states his name with ONLY in big bold letters after it

Don't use the comments to add follow-up. Use the Answer options.

So the bank levied your account that doesn't have his name on it? Did you point that out to the bank? Did the write include an account number?

The $ is supposed to be in my account tom. Someone is not doing their job. They're typing in the docket # and that's it... This is the 2nd time and they leave me flat broke for days and/or weeks. I can't keep missing work. I've lost $ because of this

Oh OK sorry :o)... The first writ, the plaintiff put my name and account # on it which she wasn't supposed to because I was already dismissed ( unless she thought he was on the account) which is understandable. The new writ, she had actually done correctly. I did point it out to the bank but they could give me no answers. I don't know who to scream at more, the courts or the bank?

I think you may have grounds for a suit this time

Do you really think? I
've missed so much work going back and forth to court the first time-- you remember my stress level was through the roof. This time, I walked out of work and went right to the court house and demanded an answer. The judge that originally handled my case was on vacation. The one they gave me thurs for an emeg hearing was a complete jerk to me. After that, the girls in the office said this shouldn't have happened AGAIN.. That night I felt lie I was having a heart attack or a nervous break down. This isn't fair to me. So fri morning I went back to the court to try and get more answers. They were all helpful and said the $ should be in there today( fri) or mon. Ya think they would have made sure it was in right away, but NO.. I have to wait for their mistake. If it's not there tom, what should I do? If it is there tomorrow, should I still raise hell?

If the bank levied your account when the writ did not mention it, then it's the bank's fault.

OK. So the courts have to show the bank the NEW writ that the plaintiff filled out. The new judge said that I failed to file a motion to have my name removed from the judgement so it's my fault that they went in again. The office downstairs said that filing a motion would only dismiss me as well and that my name will always be linked to that case even though I am not liable. They said that somebody is not reading the writ, that they see my name on top and that's what they're going by. They said filing a motion is not going to do anything, that the writ clearly states him as the debtor not me

ok. so the courts have to show the bank the NEW writ that the plaintiff filled out. The new judge said that I failed to file a motion to have my name removed from the judgement so it's my fault that they went in again. The office downstairs said that filing a motion would only dismiss me as well adn that my name will always be linked to that case even though I am not liable. They said that somebody is not reading the writ, that they see my name on top and thats what they're going by. They said filing a motion is not going to do anything, that the writ clearly states him as the debtor not me

It's unclear what's going on here. We have 5 pages in this thread and only on the last two pages are posts dated today or any time since August 27th. If the judgment creditor obtained a writ of execution against you although there was an order in the case file dismissing you from the case (looks like a case of terminal stupidity on the part of the clerk of court), you may be entitled to an award of damages against the judgment creditor.


The plaintiff did it the right way this time. The writ clearly states his name with ONLY in big bold letters after it

Ok, maybe the plaintiff tried to avoid the mistake and the clerk screwed up anyway. I would vigorously complain to the clerk's boss.

It's unclear what's going on here. We have 5 pages in this thread and only on the last two pages are posts dated today or any time since August 27th. To summarize: If the judgment creditor obtained a writ of execution against you although there was an order in the case file dismissing you from the case (looks like a case of terminal stupidity on the part of the clerk of court), you may be entitled to an award of damages against the judgment creditor.


Ok, maybe the plaintiff tried to avoid the mistake and the clerk screwed up anyway. I would vigorously complain to the clerk's boss.

I merged the two threads because the original thread gives the background needed. If you had read through it, it becomes clear. A judgment was awarded the plaintiff against the OP's husband ONLY. However, the plaintiff fudged the original writ so the OP's account, which the husband is not listed on, was levied. The OP went back to the court and the writ was vacated. The plaintiff resubmitted the writ correctly, but the bank applied it AGAIN against her account.

Therefore this time it was the bank's mistake, and, given the fact that a write was previously removed and the fact that the write did not apply to her account, she may have a cause of action against the bank.

I spoke with the bank manager last night because I personally know her. When this happened, she asked the woman who took care of uit. She stated that once again, both of our names were on the judgement paper. The clerks office said that my name will never be removed from that docket # even though I am dismissed. Also stated that filing a motion to dismiss my name from the judgement would do nothing but dismiss me and that my name would still remain. I have all this paperwork stating that I am dismissed and am not liable but they take all of my $ anyway. As I stated to you ScottGem who's helped me so much, I'm on the verge of a nervous breakdown. I've proved myself to the first judge which wasn't easy and now a new judge doesn't let me get two words in. He was so mean to me. This is making me more upset as the time passes. I can't wait to check my account later to see if the $ is put back in. If it is, should I still raise hell? If it isn't, what should be the next step that I take? Thurs the $ was levied- so I'm on day 5. I just don't want to waste any time. Once again, all of your help is greatly appreciated.

Definitely looks like what happened to me. I have all these people on my side at the court house but no true answer as to why this happened. They are pointing the finger at the constibale

Constable ;o)

I was on the phone with the bank and court all day today while I was at work. The money has not been put in as of now. They have all of the paperwork but no relief on my end. I'm so lost

constable ;o)

Constables in New Jersey?

Yes, I am in NJ. I've tried to track down this man down-- impossible.. But the girls in office just keep calling his cell phone and faxing him. So, I'm on my way to work-Hopefully I can make time to call the courts again. If not, I'm off work tomorrow and Im going to have to go to the court house again. I should just pull up a cot for the rest of the week right outside of the chambers. Hopefully my money gets released today. I gave them the benefit of the doubt yesterday... But today, if it's not in, no more nice girl... Im so fed up with this matter

Day 7. Money is still not in account. I've stayed on top of the court officer and the clerks office. The court officer actually sent the bank all of the papers too put the money in my account. I even have a copy. I called the legal dept of the bank and they stated they did not receive anything and to have him send again. I had the courts fax it to the bank to someone I know and actually had her send it to the levy/lien dept herself so I know that they got it. The courts resent as well. That was yesterday at 12:00 pm. I just don't understand what is taking so long. When this happened last time, the # was release in about 3 hours right back into my account. Im off today, so Im sitting here waiting for the banks to open so I can be another annoying customer. But I feel that I have the right to be. Will keep this page updated

The $ was released- Not the # :o)

UPDATE on wed Oct 27--- The $ was released back to me by 9 A.M. However, I did take all my paperwork to the (new) judge to prove myself yet again. He wasn't very nice to me at first. As a matter of fact, he was an as@hole before he even stepped out of his chambers. He poked his head out and asked me what I was doing there when my return date was the next day-- I told him That I just wanted to dismiss tomorrows court date because I had everything taken care of-- he just shook his head, rolled his eyes and went back into his chambers-- After he came out, I showed him everything- from soup to nuts--- he went back into his chambers and called the constable/court officer guy-- He came out a new person.. He was nothing but kind to me-- my guess is that the constable had told him he had screwed up a second time... The judge had told me to file a motion to have my name removed from the judgement. He told me to do that last time but the clerks office said that my name would never come off the paper or out of the computer-- that I am forever linked to that case even though I was dismissed with prejudice-- They said that it's pointless to do that because the only thing that they would do is dismiss me -in which I already am... I said that I'm just going to do it because the judge told me so... I don't want to have to go back to that judge and have him say, I told you twice to file a motion and you failed to do that-- So now, I'm in the process of doing that- almost done--- I just hope that this doesn't happen again... Thank you for all of your help (scottgem)

Glad to hear it. But I still don't understand why the bank placed the freeze in the first place. Did you get an explanation of that? I would request that your account be flagged so that a freeze can't be placed again on behalf of this case. If the bank won't guarantee that, then take your business elsewhere. There are plenty of banks out there.

And yes, if a judge instructs you to do something then do it. If the clerks tell you its unnecessary or can't be done, refer them back to the judge.

I suspect the judge's change of heart had to do with his really understanding the case. Judges HATE to be reversed. So any action that even hints they did something improper is going to be met extreme skepticism. But when they realize that the court (even if it wasn't them specifically) erred, they will bend over backwards to correct it.

Hey scott- thanks again for the reply. The reason the bank did go through with it was that my name is still attached to the DC# on the judgement--- However, on the same paper, it states him as the debtor ONLY-- and continues to state his property/assets ONLY--- The bank said because my name is on the form, it comes up on the levy because it's all attached--- I think that I'm going to send the legal department a copy of everything so at least maybe I can be contacted if this is about to happen again. The plaintiff was even made aware that I was in court and was given the right to be there but the girls in the office said she didn't want to be there and that she seemed disinterested of anything that was happening. Now when I file this motion to have my name taken off, she has the right to fight it-- I don't know if she will because I am already dismissed.. It's just such a headache.
As for the courts/ judges ever admitting that they're wrong, their ego would be too hurt. The entire clerks office is pointing the fingers at the constable and his office