Our client walked in with a Notice of Garnishment issued by Marshal Moses for $69,139. The creditor was Pinpoint Technologies, LLC and the current law firm enforcing the judgment for Pinpoint was Stephen Einstein & Associates, P.C.
Our job once again was to quickly stop the bleeding, retrieve any documents in a hurry, develop our client's defenses, and make our motion to vacate. Upon retrieving the court file, we learned that Pinpoint Technologies, LLC was represented by Mel Harris & Associates, LLC around the same time when Mel Harris, LR Credit and other entities were accused of a sewer service scandal.
But each case is specific. Rebutting facts with our own evidence in each case is necessary to ensure the most effective outcome. In this case, we rebutted the address allegedly served with Drivers licenses. We pointed to other defects such as a slight misspelling of our client's name, and bad service of all postjudgment documents. Plus, the plaintiff had the same or similar documents as found problematic in Sykes v. Mel Harris. For example, Pinpoint Technologies filed an affidavit signed by Todd Fabacher who was later found to have signed "hundreds of affidavits a week...without even reading" them.
Working against us was evidence that our client had been previously garnished on the same judgment. Such prior garnishments are problematic because they impute notice of the judgment to debtors. Courts generally want you to take action against the judgment once a garnishment is discovered. Some judges view inaction in such cases as "sitting on your hands."
We encourage you to order a copy of the court file as soon as you learn of a case, judgment, garnishment, or bank restraint. It is always better to make specific rebuttals to evidence than to make conclusory denials without discussing what actually happened.
If you have received any legal document (especially anything indicating a default), contact us immediately.