Related Contentin Elkhart County
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. PEART, STACEYANN
Jul 22, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |HHD-CV24-6188353-S
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. PORTERFIELD, LATOSHA M
Jul 22, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |AAN-CV24-6057207-S
Case
DFA V RICHARD DUKE, ET AL
Jul 19, 2024 |CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS |CERTIFICATE OF INDEBTEDNESS |60OT-24-4865
Case
PCA ACQUISITIONS V, LLC v. HOVAN, ANDREW
Jul 23, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |FBT-CV24-6136436-S
Case
DOR-CE V HEAVYNLY BEAUTY SUPPLY LLC (E-CASE)
Jul 22, 2024 |CC Cert of Lien-DOR Taxes |CC Cert of Lien-DOR Taxes |2416-MC04173
Case
PAYNE, VERNON v. JB MANAGEMENT LLC Et Al
Jul 22, 2024 |H20 - Housing - Housing - Housing Code Enforcement |BPH-CV24-5006248-S
Case
Discover Bank VS Sandra Jolley
Nov 25, 2022 |Clerk Of Court C P, G S, And Family Court |Common Pleas |Debt Collection 110 |2022CP4204561
Case
LVNV FUNDING LLC v. PENKRAT, DANIEL A
Jul 22, 2024 |S15 - Small Claims - Small Claims - Collection - Purchase Debt |NNH-CV24-6145668-S
Case
Lvnv Funding Llc VS Steve Robins
Jan 26, 2022 |Clerk Of Court C P, G S, And Family Court |Common Pleas |Debt Collection 110 |2022CP3200297
Ruling
CAPITAL ONE vs LIVELY, MELISSA
Jul 25, 2024 |CV-23-007271
CV-23-007271 – CAPITAL ONE vs LIVELY, MELISSA – Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings –GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, and unopposed.The Court GRANTS the request to take judicial notice of the June 11, 2024 order in this case deeming matters admitted. As a result of the order deeming matters admitted, Defendant has admitted the following: (1)Plaintiff issued to Defendant a Capital One card ending in -9518; (2) Defendant received periodic statements regarding the card charges and balance; (3) as of December 12, 2023, the balance owing on the account was $17,148.52; (4) no payments on the account have been made since December 12, 2023; and (5) the last payment on the account was made within the last three years.Based on the admissions in the order and on the pleadings, the Court finds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute causes of action against the defendant, and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §438(c)(1)(A).) Defendant, who did not oppose this motion, has not given the Court any reason to grant leave to amend. (Cf.Today's IV, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority(2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1137, 1176,reh'g denied (Oct. 25, 2022), review denied (Jan. 18, 2023).)Consequently, the unopposed motion is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. The Court will sign the proposed order and the proposed judgment submitted by Plaintiff. Court trial date to be vacated.Due to the interruption of telephone service as a result of an outage, any party requesting a hearing must make the request via email to the court clerk. If V-Court is not available and an in-person appearance is not possible, appearance must be via Zoom. Sign-up information for Zoom will be available on the court’s website.
Ruling
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. Combest
Jul 22, 2024 |23CVG-01320
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. COMBESTCase Number: 23CVG-01320Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The present motion is unopposed.This collection case was filed on December 18, 2023. Plaintiff is a debt buyer and sole assigneeof an agreement entered into by Defendant on a credit card account with Plaintiff’s predecessorSynchrony Bank. The Complaint alleged causes of action for Account Stated and Open BookAccount, with a prayer for $2,523.69 against Defendant Jennifer Combest. Defendant filed herAnswer on January 26, 2024. On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem matters admitted.Defendant did not oppose the motion to deem matters admitted, and the Court granted the motionon May 13, 2024.Meet and Confer: “The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on thepleadings a declaration stating” the attempts made to meet and confer. CCP § 439(a)(3). TheDeclaration of Gregory Parks provides sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts.Request for Judicial Notice: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of theCourt’s May 13, 2024 Order that Matters in Request for Admission be Admitted, pursuant to Evid.Code § 452(d) and 453.Merits of Motion: CCP § 438(c)(1)(A) provides a plaintiff may move for judgment on thepleadings if the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and the answer doesnot state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. The grounds for the motion shallappear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any other matter of which the court may takejudicial notice. CCP § 438(d). The Court may take judicial notice of responses to discoveryrecords pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453. Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the partiesestablishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, expressor implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, expressor implied, to pay the amount due. Leighton v. Forster (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 467, 491. “A ‘bookaccount’ is ‘a detailed statement which constitutes the principal record of one or more transactionsbetween a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some fiduciary relation, and shows thedebits and credits in connection therewith ....’ ” [Citations.] The creditor must keep these recordsin the regular course of its business and “in a reasonably permanent form,” such as a book or cardfile. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337a.) “A book account is ‘open’ where a balance remains due on theaccount.” [Citation.] Pro. Collection Consultants v. Lujan (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 685, 690–91.This Court’s Order, entered May 13, 2024, deemed admitted Plaintiff’s requested admissions 1-9.The admissions establish that: 1) Defendant had a credit account ending in 8363, 2) the creditaccount was issued by Synchrony Bank, 3) Defendant received periodic statements regarding theaccount, 4) as of December 18, 2023, the balance owed on the account was $2,523.69, 5)Defendant has not made any payments on the account since December 18, 2023, 6) Defendantsubmitted a payment toward the outstanding debt on the account within 4 years immediately priorto December 18, 2023, 7) Plaintiff was assigned the debt, 8) Plaintiff is the current owner of thedebt, and 9) Defendant received through the US mail a pre-legal notification from Plaintiffregarding the account.Defendant’s admissions establish the required elements of each cause of action. Plaintiff’s Motionfor Judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The admissions establish that a principal sum of$2,523.69 is due and owing. That sum is awarded. Plaintiffs have also submitted a memorandumof costs for $369.50, comprising the filing and service of this motion. The amount appearsreasonable and is awarded. A proposed order and judgment have been lodged with the Court andwill be executed.
Ruling
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. vs Irma White
Jul 24, 2024 |23CV-03155
23CV-03155 JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Irma White.Order to Show Cause re: SanctionsAppearance required. Remote appearances are permitted. Parties who wish to appearremotely must contact the clerk of the court at (209) 725-4111 to arrange for a remoteappearance. Appear to address the status the reason Plaintiff failed appear at the June10, 2024, Case Management Conference and whether monetary sanctions of $100 shouldbe imposed.
Ruling
Sierra Central Credit Union vs. Goodwin
Jul 25, 2024 |23CVG-00253
SIERRA CENTRAL CREDIT UNION VS. GOODWINCase Number: 23CVG-00253This matter is on calendar for review regarding status of bankruptcy. Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statementinforming the Court that the stay is still in effect. The matter is continued to Tuesday, January 23, 2025 at 9:00a.m. in Department 63 for status of bankruptcy. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
Ruling
200700285814CLCL Wescom Credit Union vs. Mateo V Gutierrez
Jul 25, 2024 |Ronda J. McKaig |Claim of Exemption - Wage Garnishment as to Leticia Aguilar |200700285814CLCL
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF VENTURA Tentative Ruling 200700285814CLCL: Wescom Credit Union vs. Mateo V Gutierrez 07/25/2024 in Department 41 Claim of Exemption - Wage Garnishment as to Leticia AguilarMotion: Claim of Exemption (Wage Garnishment) by Defendant Leticia Aguilar (“Defendant”)(Opposed).Tentative Ruling: The hearing on Defendant’s claim of exemption will be CONTINUED toAugust 16, 2024 at 8:20 AM. Defendant is ordered to file and serve documentation to support themonthly income, claimed assets, and monthly expenses included in her financial statement by nolater than August 12, 2024.Background: This is a collections action by Plaintiff Wescom Credit Union (“Plaintiff”) againstDefendant Leticia Aguilar and Defendant Mateo Gutierrez. Judgment was entered againstDefendants and in favor of Plaintiff. According to the most recent memorandum of costs afterjudgment, Defendants owe over $55,000 in principal and accrued interest.The judgment creditor is United Capital Recovery, LLC (“Judgment Creditor”).Defendant Leticia Aguilar contends that all funds in the account described are exempt asnecessary for the support of the judgment debtor or her family. Defendant is unwilling to haveany funds withheld each pay period.The financial statement discloses the following: • Three minor children with no income. • No spouse. • Defendant’s gross monthly pay is $2,220. After withholdings for taxes, the take-home pay is $$1,843.92. • Defendant has $0.85 in a Chase bank account. No other assets. • Defendant pays $2,300 per month for rent or house payments and maintenance. • Defendant pays $500 per month for food. • Defendant pays $250 per month for utilities/phone. • Defendant pays $188 per month for insurance. • Defendant pays $100 per month for school, child care. • Defendant pays $50 per month for laundry/cleaning. • Defendant owes a monthly car payment of $528.Judgment Creditor opposes and questions the validity of the claimed monthly expenses of $250for utility and telephone, $500 for food and household supplies, $2,300 for house payment andmaintenance, $100 for transportation and auto expenses, $188 for insurance, $50 for laundry andcleaning, and $528 in installment payments. Judgment Creditor’s points out that its judgment 200700285814CLCL: Wescom Credit Union vs. Mateo V Gutierreztakes precedence over the installment payments. Plaintiff requests 25% allowable by law per payperiod for payment on account on this debt.Discussion: The Court does have some concerns about Defendant’s claimed expenses. Given thestated income and the amount of expenses, Defendant must have another source of income or beaccruing debt that is not disclosed. Additionally, Defendant declares to have noassets—including no car—but also purports to pay $528 per month for a car payment.The Court continues the hearing to August 16, 2024 at 8:20 AM and orders Defendant to submitdocumentation to support her monthly income, claimed assets (or lack thereof), and monthlyexpenses by no later than August 12, 2024.
Ruling
Linda Kopcrak et al vs Elizabeth A Watkins et al
Jul 24, 2024 |Judge Thomas P. Anderle |23CV00771
For Petitioners Linda Kopcrak and Christina Carrari: Tiffany M. CarrariFor Respondent Elizabeth A. Watkins: Aaron R. FeldmanFor Respondent Angelina Dettamanti: J Paul GignacFor Proposed Intervenor Mario H. Dettamanti: Katherine Dettamanti RULINGFor the following reasons, the motion of Mario Dettamanti, for leave to intervene, is denied.BackgroundThis action commenced on February 27, 2023, by the filing of the petition to enforce money judgment by collecting trust income and principal due judgment debtor as trust beneficiary, by Petitioners Linda Kopcrak (“Kopcrak”) and Christina Carrari (collectively “Petitioners”) against Respondents Elizabeth A. Watkins (“Watkins”), Successor Trustee of the Henry and Venice Dettamanti Family Trust dated February 6, 1986, and Angelina Dettamanti (“Angelina”), Beneficiary of the Dettamanti Family Trust dated February 6, 1998, (collectively “Respondents”). [Note: due to some common sur-names, some parties will be referred to by their given names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.)As alleged in the petition:Petitioners are the judgment creditors of Angelina, who is a named beneficiary of the Henry and Venice Dettamanti Family Trust dated February 6, 1986 (“Dettamanti Trust”). (Pet., ¶¶ 1-2.) Watkins is the successor trustee of the Trust. (Pet., ¶ 3.)On November 9, 2021, Petitioners recovered a money judgment against Angelina in the sum of $711,924.35, plus applicable legal interest dating from November 25, 2018, in favor of Petitioners, as successor co-trustees of The George Miguel Carrari Trust, in Case No. 18PR00182. (Pet., ¶ 9.) No part of the judgment has been paid. (Pet., ¶ 10.)On January 24, 2022, Petitioners recovered a money judgment against Angelina in the sum of $358,000, plus applicable legal interest dating from November 25, 2018, in favor of Petitioners, as successor co-trustees of the Carrari Family Trust dated February 28, 2002 (“Carrari Trust”), in Case No. 18PR00334. (Pet., ¶ 11.) The Court signed the trust judgment on February 3, 2022, and notice of entry of judgment was served on Angelina February 11, 2022. (Ibid.)On April 21, 2022, following a hearing on Kopcrak’s motion for attorney fees, in Case No. 18PR00334, the Judgment was amended to reflect that Kopcrak was to recover total fees and costs of $595,075.99. (Pet., ¶ 12.) As amended, the money judgment against Angelina, in Case No. 18PR00334, is $953,075.99, plus interest from November 25, 2018. (Pet., ¶ 13.) No part of the judgment has been paid. (Pet., ¶ 14.)By the terms of the Dettamanti Trust, Benjamin Henry Dettamanti (“Benjamin”) was a designated beneficiary as to 50% of the trust estate. Benjamin predeceased his two children, Angelina and Mario Dettamanti (“Mario”), on August 20, 2021. (Pet., ¶ 16.) As a result, following the death of Venice Dettamanti on July 25, 2022, Angelina became entitled to half of the principal and any undistributed income held in Benjamin’s sub-share. (Ibid.)Petitioners seek to recover the judgments from Angelina’s 25 percent interest in the Dettamanti Trust assets.On March 29, 2023, this Court granted the petition and executed an order to that effect. Notice of entry of order was filed on April 10, 2023. Angelina filed a notice of appeal on June 5, 2023, but she defaulted, and the appeal was dismissed.This matter is related to Case No. 23PR00280. That matter was filed on May 30, 2023.Mario now seeks leave to intervene in this case, arguing that the motion is timely, he is entitled to intervene as a matter of right, and, alternatively, the Court should grant him permissive intervention because he has a direct interest in this action and his intervention would not enlarge the issues in the litigation.Petitioners oppose the motion as an attempt to relitigate matters that were decided on the merits more than a year ago, in an action where Mario lacks standing.Analysis“(1) The Court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:“(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.“(B) The person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.“(2) The Court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d); italics added.)“In addition to the statutory limitation on the time of intervention, it is the general rule that a right to intervene should be asserted within a Reasonable time and that the intervener must not be guilty of an Unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit. [¶] The main purpose of intervention is to obviate delay and multiplicity of actions. [Citation.] It is also the general rule that an intervention will not be allowed when it would retard the principal suit, or require a reopening of the case for further evidence, or delay the trial of the action, or change the position of the original parties. [Citation.]” (Sanders v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 661, 668-669.)Although not a party to this action, Mario was served with the petition on March 6, 2023. (Carrari Dec., ¶ 2 & Exh. A.) As Petitioners filed an objection to the probate matter and notices of related cases, on July 3, 2023, Mario has been aware of this action, as well as the specifics of the Order to enforce money judgment, for more than one year. Mario argues that his motion to intervene is timely. He correctly cites to Crestwood Behavioral Health, Inc. v. Lacy (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 560, 574 (Crestwood), for the proposition that: “ ‘Timeliness is determined by the totality of the circ*mstances facing would-be intervenors, with a focus on three primary factors: ‘ “(1) the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other parties; and (3) the reason for the delay.” ’ ” [Citation.]” However, after citing the case, Mario primarily argues that the final order in this case was erroneously entered and that the Court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. Mario presents little argument that addresses the factors mentioned in Crestwood. A final ruling on the petition has been entered, Petitioners would be prejudiced by reopening this case and relitigating it, and Mario’s stated reasons for delay in seeking to intervene are not persuasive.The Court finds that Mario failed to timely seek intervention. If he were permitted to intervene now, more than a year after the Order granting the petition, his intervention “would retard the principal suit, or require a reopening of the case for further evidence, or delay the trial of the action, or change the position of the original parties.” The motion will be denied as untimely.Alternatively, the Court will deny the motion on the following grounds:Mario further argues that his right to intervene is mandatory pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.230, which provides: “Any person who claims a legal or equitable interest in the property described in the complaint may appear in the proceeding. Whether or not such person is named as a defendant in the complaint, he shall appear as a defendant.” “Not every interest in the outcome of litigation gives to its possessor the right to intervene in the lawsuit. “ ‘The interest . . . must be direct and not consequential, and it must be an interest which is proper to be determined in the action in which the intervention is sought.’ ” [Citation.]” (Continental Vinyl Products Corp. v. Mead Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 543, 549.) “A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds to or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation.” (Ibid.)Mario’s argument that he has a legal or equitable interest in this enforcement action is conclusory and lacks merit. Mario is mentioned in the petition for enforcement of judgment as a trust beneficiary. However, the petition seeks nothing from Mario. The action is to enforce civil judgments by collecting trust income and assets of Angelina, which is separate from any interest that Mario possesses. Mario’s interest in Trust assets is not an issue in the case. The Order in this case, that Mario takes issue with, does nothing to affect any of his interests or assets. Specifically, the Order on the petition to enforce judgment provides:The enforcement action, and resulting final Order, does not affect any of Mario’s interests or rights under the Dettamanti Trust, or anything else. The petition itself seeks only assets that were designated for Angelina. This action is simply to enforce judgments against Angelina. It is in no way directed to enforcement or administration of the Trust itself. As inferred above, Mario has no interest in this action whatsoever. To the extent that Mario argues that the Order of attorney fees will reduce his interest in the Dettamanti Trust distributions, even if assumed correct, that is a matter to be heard in the related probate case which is ongoing.The motion for leave to intervene will be denied.
Ruling
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC vs. Combest
Jul 25, 2024 |23CVG-01320
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC VS. COMBESTCase Number: 23CVG-01320Tentative Ruling on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings: The present motion is unopposed.This collection case was filed on December 18, 2023. Plaintiff is a debt buyer and sole assigneeof an agreement entered into by Defendant on a credit card account with Plaintiff’s predecessorSynchrony Bank. The Complaint alleged causes of action for Account Stated and Open BookAccount, with a prayer for $2,523.69 against Defendant Jennifer Combest. Defendant filed herAnswer on January 26, 2024. On April 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to deem matters admitted.Defendant did not oppose the motion to deem matters admitted, and the Court granted the motionon May 13, 2024.Meet and Confer: “The moving party shall file and serve with the motion for judgment on thepleadings a declaration stating” the attempts made to meet and confer. CCP § 439(a)(3). TheDeclaration of Gregory Parks provides sufficient evidence of Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts.Request for Judicial Notice: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of theCourt’s May 13, 2024 Order that Matters in Request for Admission be Admitted, pursuant to Evid.Code § 452(d) and 453.Merits of Motion: CCP § 438(c)(1)(A) provides a plaintiff may move for judgment on thepleadings if the complaint states sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and the answer doesnot state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. The grounds for the motion shallappear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any other matter of which the court may takejudicial notice. CCP § 438(d). The Court may take judicial notice of responses to discoveryrecords pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452(d) and 453. Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan,Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 485.The essential elements of an account stated are: (1) previous transactions between the partiesestablishing the relationship of debtor and creditor; (2) an agreement between the parties, expressor implied, on the amount due from the debtor to the creditor; (3) a promise by the debtor, expressor implied, to pay the amount due. Leighton v. Forster (2017) 8 Cal. App. 5th 467, 491. “A ‘bookaccount’ is ‘a detailed statement which constitutes the principal record of one or more transactionsbetween a debtor and a creditor arising out of a contract or some fiduciary relation, and shows thedebits and credits in connection therewith ....’ ” [Citations.] The creditor must keep these recordsin the regular course of its business and “in a reasonably permanent form,” such as a book or cardfile. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337a.) “A book account is ‘open’ where a balance remains due on theaccount.” [Citation.] Pro. Collection Consultants v. Lujan (2018) 23 Cal. App. 5th 685, 690–91.This Court’s Order, entered May 13, 2024, deemed admitted Plaintiff’s requested admissions 1-9.The admissions establish that: 1) Defendant had a credit account ending in 8363, 2) the creditaccount was issued by Synchrony Bank, 3) Defendant received periodic statements regarding theaccount, 4) as of December 18, 2023, the balance owed on the account was $2,523.69, 5)Defendant has not made any payments on the account since December 18, 2023, 6) Defendantsubmitted a payment toward the outstanding debt on the account within 4 years immediately priorto December 18, 2023, 7) Plaintiff was assigned the debt, 8) Plaintiff is the current owner of thedebt, and 9) Defendant received through the US mail a pre-legal notification from Plaintiffregarding the account.Defendant’s admissions establish the required elements of each cause of action. Plaintiff’s Motionfor Judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED. The admissions establish that a principal sum of$2,523.69 is due and owing. That sum is awarded. Plaintiffs have also submitted a memorandumof costs for $369.50, comprising the filing and service of this motion. The amount appearsreasonable and is awarded. A proposed order and judgment have been lodged with the Court andwill be executed.
Ruling
Capital One N.A. vs Sergio Alvarado
Jul 25, 2024 |23CV-04296
23CV-04296 Capital One N.A v.Sergio AlvaradoMotion for Judgment on the PleadingsAppearance required. Parties who wish to appear remotely must contact the clerk of thecourt at (209) 725-4111 to seek permission and arrange for a remote appearance. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF MERCED Restraining Orders Hon. Jennifer O. Trimble Courtroom 12 1159 G Street, Los Banos Thursday, July 25, 2024 11:00 a.m. The following tentative rulings shall become the ruling of the court unless a party gives notice of intention to appear as follows: 1. You must call (209) 725-4111 to notify the court of your intent to appear. 2. You must give notice to all other parties before 4:00 p.m. of your intent to appear. Per California Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1), failure to do both items 1 and 2 will result in no oral argument. Note: Notifying Court Call (the court’s telephonic appearance provider) of your intent to appear does not satisfy the requirement of notifying the court. IMPORTANT: Court Reporters will NOT be provided; parties wanting a hearing transcript must make their own arrangements.Case No. Title / Description
Document
HERNANDEZ VS HERNANDEZ
Jun 21, 2024 |Adkins, Tamela L. |Post Judgment Domestic Contempt* |Post Judgment Domestic Contempt* |24-A-05570-4
Document
Stephen S Hendrickson vs Machining Technologies, Inc.
Jul 25, 2024 |Open |Confession of Judgment |Confession of Judgment |27-CV-24-11172
Document
Sooper Credit Union v. Garcia Mendez, Jose et al
Jul 18, 2024 |Mary E Deganhart |Replevin |2024CV030074
Document
Short Term Financial, LLC vs Eugene Morris
Jul 22, 2024 |Open |Foreign Judgment |Foreign Judgment |69DU-CV-24-1684
Document
LVNV FUNDING LLC vs Angela Torgerson
Jul 24, 2024 |Open |Confession of Judgment |Confession of Judgment |69DU-CV-24-1701
Document
Camp Smile Pediatric Dentistry vs Sonja Wahl, Cory Wahl
Jul 24, 2024 |McPherson, Catherine |Transcript Judgment |Transcript Judgment |86-CV-24-3893
Document
FAIRVIEW HEALTH SERVICES vs Krista N Sanborn
Jul 24, 2024 |McCarthy, Karin L. |Consumer Credit Contract |Consumer Credit Contract |02-CV-24-4169
Document
Credit Corp Solutions Inc vs Jenna Halek
Jul 22, 2024 |Tenney, Geoffrey W. |Consumer Credit Contract |Consumer Credit Contract |86-CV-24-3841
