disagreement there. Now if they stopped paying rent because the roof caved in or something...
spent thousands to repair it afterward. But he seems entitled to living free forever because it leaked one day. It never leaked again. This is just an excuse, if not for this, there are others. He even stated in his answer that he is withholding rent because there are missing shelfs in the fridge. Any sane judge would see that he is just gaming the system.
like that..
but probably unable to collect from the deadbeat. I am angry at the court to allow such non-sense. After the eviction, will take it to the federal court to sue the state.
an
meaning you
you will
they
is that
to do
the stick
not respond to Order to Show Cause (not serving plaintiff) and the Judge did not follow through with the Order. Did the judge not understanding the Order, or the Court Order means nothing. If the court erred, they should be held accountable.
the
mean
was
you
They
Nothing more..
considered for TWR (temporary eviction). I don't know what defendant filed with the court.. But it's not admissible without serving plaintiff. He could lie his tail off. In his answer to Appeal Court's Order to Show Answer, no valid reason for defending UD, even if he served previously. Now, defendant's game with the system renders lower court proceeding meaningless. The lower court judge has all the information to rule on TWR, but choose not to.
part.
delays?
restitution
TEMPORARY WRIT OF RESTITUTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE":
Writ of Restitution, allowing Plaintiff/Landlord to remove Defendant/Tenant from the rental premises ..."
Plaintiff/Landlord may request at a later date that a trial be set ..."
an answer or other response to the Complaint for Unlawful Detainer filed in this case is hereby shortened to ten (10) calendar days from the day the Summons and Complaint for Unlawful Detainer are served on Defendant/Tenant (not counting the day of service)."
of service to the court properly. The deadline for such answer expired more than 10 days before the hearing. As of this filing, defendant did not and still have not respond to plaintiff's request for the Order to Show Cause. As a consequence, the hearing was meaningless, since there was no answer for the plaintiff to examine and nothing for the defendant to contest. The court below should have issued the Writ of Restitution immediately. Lack of such court action from below, plaintiff was forced to appeal to this court and suffers additional five months of liquidation damages.
ownership of property. Defendant paid plaintiff $6000 to purchase the property, rather than to rent. Plaintiff gave the property to defendant. Defendant mailed payments somewhere. Defendant paid off someone. Of course, any such claims would be subject to criminal perjury prosecution in the court of law. Defendant did not provide relevant answer and plaintiff moves the court to quash defendant's answer.
defendant's failure to answer. This court ordered defendant to answer why there was no answer. Defendant could have blamed the post office. Defendant could have accused plaintiff of lies. Defendant could have paid off someone. Defendant did not provide any such claims either. As a result, defendant gave up the right to contest the order. Lower court should have acted accordingly and issue the Temporary Writ of Restitution.
in illegally detained rental payments at that time, defendant could have claimed up to $6000 from plaintiff at trial. More than enough to cover all the payments made to plaintiff previously. Lower court did not consider the facts diligently, and rejected plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Writ of Restitution. Did the court below not understand the order? Did the court below have a different standard for plaintiff and/or defendant? Or did the Court Order not mean anything? The court below made an error in judgment and should be held responsible and liable.
Including back rents and indemnification bond, defendant can claim up to $10,000 from plaintiff. However, plaintiff cannot claim anything from defendant, since defendant is not required to put up a dime. If defendant put the illegally detained rental money in escrow and/or bond, plaintiff is willing and ready to answer any and or allegations from defendant.
to issue the Temporary Writ of Restitution immediately.
I hope that you were not so careless as to demand anything from the judge or court, verbally or in writing, as that is a sure way to get messed up in the system. Pray or request normal statutory relief from your undesired tenant who is far arrears in rent.
?-/