CA claims to have sent settlement agreement to court for cas

Submitted by question on Fri, 10/09/2009 - 14:17

i called the CA's attorney to see if they have filed for case dismissal after receving my payment on 9/30. they claimed they have sent the settlement agreement to court for case dismissal.
is that it? don't they have to file for dismissal.
and how come i haven't received anything from them in the mail?
i am not sure what to do.
the court is scheduled for 12/7 and i am afraid that they will get a default judjment since i didnt send the interogation questions that came with the settlement agreement.
my understanding was if i make the payment that the case will be settled. did i also have to fill out the interogation questions?
not sure how that works.
any help or advice will be greatly appreciated.

Normally they shoudl ahve sent a copy of that letter to you

You shoudl ask for a copy of the same

And als call the court verufy that the case is closed now

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 03:38 Permalink

HI Question,

Didn't you send a copy of the settlement agreement to the court? You should have sent a copy from your end as well. Yes, the CA is supposed to intimate you about sending the documents to court. I think, you should personally go to the court and in quire about your case. If you find that your case has not been dismissed, then appear in the court on the due date and show the settlement agreement to the judge. That will prove that you have already paid the amount which was decided. Do not miss the court date, otherwise you might end up with a default judgment.

However, if you think that the situation is too complicated, you can hire an attorney.

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 07:01 Permalink

i did send the agreement and proof of payment to the court from my end.; also yesterday i contacted the court and they told me that the ca filed for dismissal on 10/05 adn they have the agreement and the case is settled. so i asked them to send me something in writing as a proof; so hopefully this will be the end of this. thanks for the reply

Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:03 Permalink