ExpertLaw.com Forums

Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail

Printable View

  • 05-17-2017, 05:15 PM
    harassed?
    Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    My question involves collection proceedings in the State of:Colorado

    What is the purpose of having the sheriff serve court documents to someone when they have already been mailed AND RESPONDED TO?

    In Feb, I received in the mail and replied to a motion in an old lawsuit from a debt collector. More than a week AFTER I replied, the county sheriff attempted to serve me with the motion I had already replied to. I wasn't home, so he left me a message. I returned his call and told him that I had already received and replied to the motion he was looking to serve. He said he would get back with the debt collector and see if they still wanted him to serve me in person. The next week, he knocked on my door and said that they told him to go ahead and serve me.

    2 months later, they mailed me an amended motion which I again replied to. Almost two weeks after I mailed my reply, the sheriff served me with another amended motion that was identical to the motion I had already replied to but with a court filing date 5 days after the amended motion they mailed to me. He seemed to indicate that the debt collectors were not very nice people.
  • 05-18-2017, 08:45 AM
    LexisLutor
    Re: Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    Quote:

    Quoting harassed?
    View Post
    What is the purpose of having the sheriff serve court documents to someone when they have already been mailed AND RESPONDED TO?

    That's certainly an annoying practice but I doubt it is actionable. That is, I doubt the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq, or the court rules (whether state or federal) limit the number of times a document may be served. Unless it's more than a few times for each document, the debt collector can reasonably argue that it is only ensuring that you get the court papers. I can only advise you to validate that both copies are always the same, verbatim. You never know when the debt collector will make a subtle but material change on the 2nd version (the one being filed to the court) in a way that unduly portrays you as making an admission or false statement which you wouldn't actually make.

    Do you know when the debt collector took the copy to the the sheriff office? At least with regard to the initial motion, it might have to do with the sheriff's delay. On one occasion I used the sheriff office services, and my complaint & summons was served upon the defendant two weeks later despite being located in the same small city (not Colorado). On another occasion I served a Personal Protection Order through the sheriff office. The PPO was served the next day but I wasn't getting copy of the proof of service. It turned out that the deputy mistakenly filed proof of service in another town.
  • 05-18-2017, 09:07 AM
    adjusterjack
    Re: Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    Quote:

    What is the purpose of having the sheriff serve court documents to someone when they have already been mailed AND RESPONDED TO?
    Nothing wrong, illegal or harassing about it. It's a way to make sure a defendant gets served properly.

    If it annoys you, oh well.
  • 05-18-2017, 10:11 AM
    LexisLutor
    Re: Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    I should have cited 15 USC 1692 and in particular 1692d (harassment and abuse), but that doesn't change the conclusion.
  • 05-18-2017, 12:29 PM
    adjusterjack
    Re: Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    Quote:

    Quoting LexisLutor
    View Post
    I should have cited 15 USC 1692 and in particular 1692d (harassment and abuse), but that doesn't change the conclusion.

    Right.

    That section applies to a debt collector's behavior prior to filing a lawsuit.

    During a lawsuit the doctrine of "abuse of process" could apply.

    However, according to the Colorado Court of Appeals:

    Quote:

    to prevail on an abuse of process claim, a plaintiff
    must prove the defendant (1) had an ulterior purpose in using a
    judicial proceeding; (2) used the proceeding in an improper manner
    by taking a willful action that was improper in the proceeding’s
    regular course; and (3) caused damage.
    The court goes on to explain all those elements starting on Page 7:

    https://www.courts.state.co.us/Court...0/08CA1867.pdf

    In the OP's case neither (1) or (2) appear to apply and with regard to (3) the court said:

    Quote:

    mere vexation or frustration without demonstrable
    damage is insufficient to sustain liability.
    Looks like OP is just stuck with getting served twice.
  • 05-19-2017, 03:37 PM
    harassed?
    Re: Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    Thanks for the replies...I wasn't really considering taking action based on this, but wondered how common this practice was. I get that the other party wants to make sure I have received their filings/motions and don't pretend to be a civil procedure expert, but seems like RESPONDING to a motion provides proof that I received it. Of course, in the case of the amended motions with different dates, my response to the one I received in the mail would not necessarily mean I received a copy of the one that was filed with the court with a different date.

    @LexisLutor might be right that there was some delay from the time the creditor requested that the Sheriff serve me and the time it actually took place. However, at least with the original motion, the Sheriff contacted them AFTER they had received my reply (and I believe after the Judge had set a hearing date) to see if they still wanted him to serve me and they said yes.
  • 05-19-2017, 07:18 PM
    LexisLutor
    Re: Is it Harassement to Serve You in Person if You Were Already Served by Mail
    Quote:

    Quoting harassed?
    View Post
    seems like RESPONDING to a motion provides proof that I received it. Of course, in the case of the amended motions with different dates, my response to the one I received in the mail would not necessarily mean I received a copy of the one that was filed with the court with a different date.

    Just to clarify, the other party is not required to serve copy of what the court has stamped. As long as the filing party sends you a copy (be it before or after filing it with the court) and does so with the required anticipation, that's fair game. But remember my suggestion that both copies be identical ~ verbatim for the reason I explained above. I definitely won't generalize, but I've litigated against lawyers who attempted to commit fraud on the court through very obvious "tactics".

    Quote:

    Quoting harassed?
    View Post
    @LexisLutor might be right that there was some delay from the time the creditor requested that the Sheriff serve me and the time it actually took place. However, at least with the original motion, the Sheriff contacted them AFTER they had received my reply (and I believe after the Judge had set a hearing date) to see if they still wanted him to serve me and they said yes.

    I wouldn't discard that the other party is trying to intimidate and harass you to the extent permitted by the court rules. Hence my mention of "Unless it's more than a few times on each document ...".
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved