View Single Post
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2012, 12:42 AM
Old Lawyer Old Lawyer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 32
Old Lawyer is on a distinguished road
Default

Glad that the court clarified that motions may be brought where either party lives unless it relates to custody. Doesn't matter age of child.

Different judges and different courts do things differently but a 14b is not intended to be used for substantive matters. i.e. terminating support. It is used for simple procedural matters or consent matters. It is very hard to get most judges to deal with anything on a 14b

You do not file the case law. Case law is what is used in argument it is not evidence. (of course there is such a thing as a factum which includes case law bu that is not what you are dealing with)

But to get your evidence in use a Form 14a which is an affidavit form. You should be able to add it to one of the motion to change forms but for some reason they don't like it.

In the 14 a you will list the facts that are relevant to your motion and you will attach your supporting documentation as exhibits.

Another way to do it which I prefer but some judges will rebel against is to use A REquest to Admit. The reason why I prefer a Request to /admit is because if the matter goes to trial the REQuest to Admit can be put in the Trial record and is part of the evidence at the Trial. But a 14a is completely irrelevant if you go to trial

A Request to Admit allows you to make statements in one part and add documents to it. The responding party has 20 days to rebut the statements or say that the documents attached are not authentic. If they do not then the facts are deemed to be true for the case and the documents are deemed to be authentic. This rule is to cut short the time of trials and to force parties to be straight forward with respect to facts and not play games.

Traditional judges love the Request to Admit as a time saver in trials. But some seem to think it is cheating. You know getting people to deal with real facts and not shadow box.

I was not in on the early part of the conversation and so I do not know if your case is slam dunk or not.