round two...

so this week we had our second round in small claims court and it was pretty entertaining. in case you don't know why we're there...e's band had some individual agreements drawn up years ago to protect different parties from financial issues if something happened with the band. for example, e purchased/financed the band's van and an agreement was signed by all members of the band that stated the band would make payments and if it couldn't then van would be sold and any deficit would be paid by the members of the band (e included). well, we had to sell the van recently because it wouldn't run and we ended up with a $3000 deficit. the old drummer who left the band about a year ago signed this agreement and has refused to pay his $1000+ hence the reason we are in court.

the first round consisted of a pompous attorney who made accusations, lied and pretty much denied all obvious facts. a very bizarre, frustrating experience. and we had to go back this week to present more evidence regarding the value of the van and did we sell it at a reasonable price. sigh. below is an email that i sent to my friend/attorney who is currently vacationing in cabo...so it's written in a letter format but should give you the overall idea. she has since told me that in the 30 years she's been practicing law she has never heard of anything like this. imagine that...

recap starts now...

Again, they came in with all sorts of random accusations that in most cases conflicted with each other. But I had a much better idea this time of what his approach would be so I had all sorts of things there to refute his accusations. You would have been proud of me because there were a couple of times I was able to just shut him down. For example when he made the point that T was not contacted about the sale of the van and that T wanted to be included in the choice. I promptly pulled out the letter that you had written him that clearly stated the van was going to be sold and there would likely be a deficit. It really was sort of like chasing my tail, their logic was just insane.

I produced documentation from our mechanic stating what work needed to be done on the van at sale (our mechanic was supposed to come but didn't show up) and all service records on the van. I also had trade-in and retail values. E's dad also came to testify about the sale and payoff of the van. We also had invoices for auto work that the church (current owner) has already done on the van. These were also very handy to have.

They had a witness who owns and operates a used car lot. He basically provided NADA values and stated that we sold the van for far less than it was worth. But he had only seen pictures of the van. He spoke a lot about the wholesale process which seemed rather pointless to me because I'm just an individual selling a car. At this point, the judge starts making them nail down a value and the cost to repair. They basically state the van in fair condition is worth $4500 and to fix it would cost around $2500. Both Tommy and the attorney state that they would pay $4500 for it. The judge seems very interested in this.

I'm starting to get a little confused at this point because my selling price was based on the fact that $3000 in repairs were going to have to be done and I'm not sure what's going on. I'm about to make the point that these numbers are all relative and the judge stops me. And calls me the one who talks a lot and asks me if we win this case do I think we will ever see the money. And I say no. And he says neither do I so I'm going to try to make this easier for you.

He then tells me that I need to subpoena both the mechanic who helped sell the van and the pastor of the church who purchased the van. We need to talk to the pastor and if we can convince him to sell the van the defendants have stated they are willing to pay $4500 for the van in its current state. This money will reimburse the church their initial cost, the repairs they'e made and give us the money we're suing for (plus some). He told the defendants to bring their check book because his ruling wouldn't be a judgment it would be a transaction.

end of recap...

as we left the courtroom, everyone had a blank look on their face. i partially still do. i think we're winning. e and i have come up with the analogy, it's kind of like we're winning the race but we haven't quite won it and we can't claim victory. someone compared it to obama today...

the more i think about it, i think the judge is trying to force their hand. possibly encourage them settle, but they are stupid and prideful and my guess is they are willing to buy that van. which is so funny because this is thing they have been running from...all connection to the band but they could potentially own the band's van. with a bad transmission and 230,000 miles.

but seriously, this has gotten weird.

the next showdown takes place on the 17th. you should come watch, there could be blows this time. or crying when they pay way too much for a crappy 15 passenger van.