Please explain to me why I find this funny.


Tom Garrett 4 years, 3 months ago

A large bank--it doesn't matter which one--took a couple to court over $28,785 in credit card debt.

Attached to the complaint was an affidavit signed by a bank official that listed the total amount due. To allow the court to make a judgment on the validity of its claim, the complaint referred to “Exhibit A,” which it said contained the evidence needed to show what was due on the account .

But no one attached "Exhibit A."

The couple, flat broke as a result of the recession like a lot of other people, didn't even bother to appear in court, so the bank filed for a "default judgment."

However in filing for the default judgment the bank did not list a specific amount of money. It only referred back to Exhibit A again.

The defendants did not show up for the default hearing, but neither did anyone from the bank. So the trial judge awarded the bank $328 in costs....

....but no damages because no damages had been proven.

The bank appealed.

No soap. The appeals judge said they should have been there at the default hearing. They weren't there so the trial judge gave them what they asked for--nothing.

The appeals judge pointed out that since the affidavit repeatedly referred to the non-existing Exhibit A as proof of what was due on the account, that allowed the trial judge to conclude the affidavit was incomplete and a hearing was necessary to establish the truth of what the bank was saying. No one came to the hearing. No one submitted Exhibit A to prove the amount due. And damages were awarded. End of trial.

Gee, judge. Would a bank lie?


In fact: :-) :-) :-)


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.