[sarasmom61809]

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?

[this8384]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[sarasmom61809]

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 $.

[sarasmom61809]

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

[sarasmom61809]

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:

[this8384]

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.

[sarasmom61809]

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?

[this8384]

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.

[sarasmom61809]

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. :(

[ScottGem]

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.

[this8384]

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.

[sarasmom61809]

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:

[this8384]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[sarasmom61809]

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?

[sarasmom61809]

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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[this8384]

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.

[sarasmom61809]

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 :)