As always, time is of the essence when facing an income execution (garnishment).
We needed to respond quickly to the final stages of a garnishment executed by Marshal Ronald Moses. In the underlying case,
Unifund CCR, LLC was represented by
Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP.
The current judgment balance was $36,158,40 and our client had no awareness (notice) of the case. The address listed on the plaintiff's papers was inaccurate. When it comes to legal service of papers, even a slight inaccuracy (i.e. apartment number) could unwind an entire case if raised properly. In our case, we immediately forwarded to opposing counsel and to the Marshal our client's driver's license and a NYC ID. Both pieces of proof rebutted the address listed on the plaintiff's papers.
Luckily, Marshal Moses and Mulloly's office are very fair and reasonable with us. So our proof was respected immediately and the entire judgment and case were immediately withdrawn.
Be Specific when Rebutting Service
As with all cases where judgments rest on the presumption of valid service, specificity is critically important. You must provide as much detail—and provide as much documentation—as possible to rebut the plaintiff's allegations of service. For example, if you claim that the plaintiff served an outdated address, prove with it with a license, lease or tax return. If you claim that the plaintiff served a co-resident who was described inaccurately, prove it with photos, a passport, or some other form of ID. Creditors enjoy a presumption of validity after an affidavit of service is filed.
If you are facing a garnishment brought by Marshal Moses or
contact us immediately.