[angelface44]

Hello,
I am a Florida resident and recently had a debt from 17 years ago picked up by a third party attorney who had my bank account garnished. After this occurred, I filied a claim of excemption but did not show up for the hearing because I assumed I needed an attorney to represent me and did not want to be torn to pieces for lack of knowledge. I then did some reading and entered a sworn denial in which I assumed the attorney had to present documentation to me before he could be rewarded the money in my bank account and get a judgment. I checked the court house today and it shows that I entered the sworn denial but shows a judgement for garnishment entered after that. Are they totally discounting my sworn denial? And does this judgment mean they will get the money in my bank account that is now in the registry of the courts and what can I file now to dispute the judgment?

[JudyKayTee]

hello,
i am a florida resident and recently had a debt from 17 years ago picked up by a third party attorney who had my bank account garnished. after this occured, i filied a claim of excemption but did not show up for the hearing becuase i assumed i needed an attorney to represent me and did not want to be torn to pieces for lack of knowledge. i then did some reading and entered a sworn denial inwhich i assumed the attorney had to present documentation to me before he could be rewarded the money in my bank account and get a judgment. i checked the court house today and it shows that i entered the sworn denial but shows a judgement for garnishment entered after that. are they totally discounting my sworn denial? and does this judgment mean they will get the money in my bank account that is now in the registry of the courts and what can i file now to dispute the judgment?

When was the Judgment entered? I can't tell if you're addressing the Judgment or the garnishment.

If you did not appear and the time to appear ran you have an uphill battle ahead.

If you don't know what happened in Court, go to Court and look at the file. I doubt the Clerk will give you any info over the phone.

[Fr_Chuck]

Well judges don't like it when you file for a hearing and don't show up, and it appears that you did not show up for the actual hearing where the judgement was issued.

But if the judge let the judgement stand, then yes the garnishment will be in effect.

[angelface44]

well judges don't like it when you file for a hearing and don't show up, and it appears that you did not show up for the actual hearing where the judgement was issued.

But if the judge let the judgement stand, then yes the garnishment will be in effect.

A judgment of garnishment was entered on oct. 7 my sworn denial was entered on sept 26. I am not sure if a final judgment and a final judgement of garnishment are the same. Is there a difference and if this is the final judgment for the debt can I file a slow pay or paupers oath at this point?

[ScottGem]

This is confusing. How could your account have been attached without a previous judgement. What I suspect has happened here, is that a judgement was obtained long ago and renewed (because 17 years is way past the SOL) and the owner of that judgement just found assets of yours.

If that's the case, then I think you are out of luck. But you need to find out the facts and then see what you can do to fight it.

[angelface44]

This is confusing. How could your account have been attached without a previous judgement. What I suspect has happened here, is that a judgement was obtained long ago and renewed (because 17 years is way past the SOL) and the owner of that judgement just found assets of yours.

If that's the case, then I think you are out of luck. But you need to find out the facts and then see what you can do to fight it.

Yes, there was an amended final judgment entered in 1991 and a writ of execution but nothing happened. I was not even aware of all of this until my bank account was garnished and then went online at the courthouse and got all of this info. This prompted me to file the claim of excemption and the sworn denial. Will there be a default judgment or do they not need enter that because of the original judgment in 1991? My whole problem here is that the debt that was owed was to a bank I worked for 19 years ago which is no longer in exsistance, I know this because I work for them until they went under which was the same year of the original judgment. I believe this is a third party attorney who bought the debt for pennies on the dollar and is not collecting for the bank I worked for.

[ScottGem]

My question is where you aware of the original judgement? Did you get served or was a default judgement entered without your knowledge?

Who currently owns the debt is immaterial as long as they can prove they own it.

On what grounds are you claiming exemption? What exactly is your sworn deinal denying? Are you asking that the judgement be vacated?

Generally, unless you can prove the original judgement was entered improperly, you aren't going to vacate it.

[angelface44]

My question is where you aware of the original judgement? Did you get served or was a default judgement entered without your knowledge?

Who currently owns the debt is immaterial as long as they can prove they own it.

On what grounds are you claiming exemption? What exactly is your sworn deinal denying? Are you asking that the judgement be vacated?

Generally, unless you can prove the original judgement was entered improperly, you aren't going to vacate it.

I do not remember ever being severed in 1991 for the original judgment but I was severed in July of this year. I just had a baby and I am currently unemployed. I could not afford an attorney to fight this case so decided to try and do it myself. I could not make the hearing and wrote the judge a letter telling him so but he would not postpone the hearing (I assume because of the 10 day hearing limit on claim of excemptions). The sworn denial is simplying requesting proof of original documentation a what is actually owed, and if the attorney is indeed representing the plaintiff then he should have no problem presenting that to me it is my right. I read that if they could not present that info then the case could be thrown out.

[ScottGem]

Yes, if the plaintiff can't present verification of the debt then the ORIGINAL SUIT would be thrown out. The problem is to get a rehearing on the original suit you have to get the original judgement vacated. The only way to do that is to claim improper service.

So you want to file a motion to vacate on the grounds that you were never properly served and had no chance to defend against the original suit.

The plaintiff will then have to produce proof of service. If they can't the judgement will be vacated and they will serve you properly before you leave the building.

You will then make them provide verification of the debt. If they do, you lose and a new judgement will be issued. If they don't the case will be dismissed.