Think you LL's will love this. Filed for none pay with court -- tenant was served and has 7 days to answer. Type of tenant who waits and waits- (even for yard mowing) anyway he waited to answer the dispo and guess what-- he sent it in "on line" and was late. Last time to answer was midnight Friday the 14th.

HE ANSWERED THE 15TH ONLINE.

Court posted "ANSWERED LATE". We filed for writ of possession for sheriff. Had he answered on time he would have gotten another 10 to 14 days for court date.

Lucky!

He can ask the court to put aside whatever judgement that made in his default, and ask for a new trial. Many judges will grant that, because they believe that all parties should have their opportunity to be heard. Its really the only way to end up with fair decisions.

Ally, I try not to respond to your posts, but i can not sit by and allow you to spread 'fake news'. I live in the same county as his parent house, which they still own based on most recent tax records. The person i assume you are quoting is called "

by Jim Hoft, the most consistently wrong man on the Internet."

No, Brett Kavanaugh’s mother didn’t foreclose on his accuser’s parents' house

by Becket Adams

| September 17, 2018 04:12 PM

Print this article

Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has been accused of sexually assaulting a woman, Christine Blasey Ford, when they were both in high school in the early 1980s. Kavanaugh has now twice denied the allegations, saying in no uncertain terms that he did no such thing.

The allegations have prompted the normal reactions from political partisans, including the usual airing of misleading, disingenuous, and outright false attacks and defenses.

But perhaps the strangest response this week to the Kavanaugh accusations involves the dredging up of a 1996 court case adjudicated in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. The case involves Ford’s parents, Ralph and Paula Blasey, and Kavanaugh’s mother, Martha, who served at the time as a judge on that circuit.

AD

Examining Politics: The primaries are over, now it's on to the fall classic

Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads

The court filing ( Case No. 156006V in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County) shows that the Blaseys appeared as defendants in a case involving a foreclosure on their home. And a judge briefly involved in the case was none other than Martha Kavanaugh.

For some on the Right, the documents are evidence that Christine Blasey Ford has an axe to grind with Brett Kavanaugh.

“Bad Blood: Judge Kavanaugh’s Mother Foreclosed on Far Left Accuser’s Parents’ Home,” reads a headline published by Jim Hoft, the most consistently wrong man on the Internet.

A website called Pacific Pundit published a headline reading, “CHRISTINE BLASEY-FORD MOTIVE: REVENGE – KAVANAUGH’S MOTHER JUDGE AGAINST PARENTS IN FORECLOSURE CASE 1996.”

A separate headline published by the Powerline blog reads, “KAVANAUGH’S MOTHER RULED AGAINST ACCUSER’S PARENTS.”

The opening paragraph reads, “It looks like Brett Kavanaugh’s mother, Judge Martha Kavanaugh, ruled against the parents of Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accuses Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Court documents show the losing party in a foreclosure case Martha Kavanaugh heard to be Ralph and Paula Blasey of Potomac, Maryland. They appear to be Christine Blasey Ford’s parents. … There now seems to be a motive, beyond partisan politics, for Ford to make up or significantly embellish her story so long after the ‘fact.’”

The story concludes with these lines, “It seems more likely that Ms. Ford has invented or substantially embellished this story — out of political bias, animus towards the family because of the court case, or both.”

The problem with these supposed “Ah-ha!” defenses of Kavanaugh is that they rely on a misreading of the actual court documents.

A review of the filings shows that Judge Kavanaugh signed an order in 1997 dismissing the foreclosure after the Blaseys refinanced their home. The 10th item on the court docket reads, “ORDER OF COURT (KAVANAUGH, J./RICE, M.) THAT THE VOLUNTARY MOTION TO DISMISS IS HEREBY GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE AND THAT THE BOND FILED BY HARRY J. KELLY AS TRUSTEE SHALL BE RELEASED AND RETURNED FILED.”

The records show Martha Kavanaugh was one of several judges involved in the case. The records show she made no ruling pertaining to a seizure of the Blasleys’ home. The records also show that her involvement in the case was minimal. Basically, she dismissed it, and that's it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mosha yea that's true -- to be heard-- during the 7 days from receipt to answering court. There pretty strict with that time frame. (if they weren't why have it?)

Just read his 2 page answer (the one filed late) blames us for not helping him get new place due to his 5 dispos' on file. 2 or which are ours.

will keep you updated on set out.

myob, Yes, the law specifies a procedure that specified timelines for petitions, answers and other actions. And, they are framed in terms of petitions being allowed if the are filed within the time lines. And that is why the law must take adverse action if the letter of the law is not followed.

But thats not necessarily justice, and anyone who has spent any time in court knows that. So the law also has procedures for those who feel that their needs were not met can ask for a chance to reason with the judge, have the previous order set aside and another chance to express their case. Its not an appeal, its just an adjustment to make sure that all parties get their side heard, despite the exigencies of time and place. Happens every day. If a defendant misses his court date for good or bad reasons, is it good justice that he doesn't get his side heard? No really.

If you had good grounds for your petition, then giving the defendant another chance to have his side heard won't change anything. Giving him the chance is just good judging. If your case depended on the defendant not showing up, then bringing both parties together to have their sides heard is what fair courts are supposed to do. The object of the court is not for you to win, it is for a result which is consistent with justice, fairness and the law to prevail, And refusing the defendant his day in court hardly helps to accomplish that.

MOSHA so I think what your saying is: since tenant didn't answer on time-- which can be done online--- that's not really justice-- he should get another bite at the apple.

That's BS. He had 7 days to answer and forgot to do it-- gee I feel so guilty he missed it. Tenants wait and wait and wait til the last second to answer in order to get the max time in a property or to delay delay delay paying.

Moshe, what about the justice for the plaintiff? Recently had a fellow LL get to court and the judge told her the defendant had to tried to continue the case at 4.45 the night before (which was too late and the case went on.)

But what if the judge had allowed that? The LL would have had no way of knowing, would have showed up early AM, sat and waited for their case...only to find it was continued at the last minute? No that's not right.