I was the defendant in an eviction action. Tiffany and Bosco were the attys for the plaintiff. The Managing Partner on this case claimed to have mailed a 30 day notice to my home address, via certified mail. According to USPS tracking info, obtained by me and never presented by Tiffany & Bosco, I supposedly received 3 different types of notices before the letter was returned undeliverable. When in reality, the first notice I received was a 5 day forcible detainer action. I received it, signed for it, and appeared at the hearing.
The commissioner assigned to my case had been newly appointed to the bench for less than six months. He stated on the record that he needed to look up the law as we presented our arguments. He relied heavily on the attorneys' representations regarding the law and only looked up the statutes cited by them, and none of the laws I cited. I believe the attorneys took advantage of his lack of experience. The plaintiff never presented the USPS tracking history to the court. I obtained the tracking number myself and tracked the mailing. The plaintiff also never presented the returned mail or envelope as evidence. Instead, the attorney presented only a photograph showing the preparation of the certified-mail piece. There was no tracking history, no returned mail, and no other evidence establishing that the alleged 30-day notice was actually mailed and received as represented. I repeatedly pointed this out to the commissioner. At my pleadings stating they have to have returned mail, something proving it actually was mailed to my address, the atty, in almost a whisper stated to the judge, " oh, we received return mail on Oct.....But still did not present it to the court. Again the judge relying on the word of the atty instead of proof.
The case was filed in Superior Court rather than the Justice Court where eviction actions are normally initiated. I had legitimate ownership-related claims that I was attempting to raise, (which I believe the attys had forknowledge of and why they brought it in Superior court and not justice court.) and I asked that those claims be heard in the proper forum. That request was denied.
I later received the firm's detailed billing ledger as part of the judgment against me. That ledger raised serious questions. It showed billing for a draft of the 30-day notice, but I could find no subsequent billing for a final notice, no charge for certified postage, and no charge for a paralegal supposedly taking the letter to the post office at approximately 8:30 p.m. The ledger contained charges for matters far less significant than these. Yet the court had been shown a photograph of what appeared to be a certified-mail receipt.
In my view, the absence of those charges was highly significant. I contend that the evidence presented to the court did not establish that the 30-day notice had actually been mailed in the manner represented. I believe the attorneys relied on the presumption of service associated with the 5-day process to obtain a judgment without first establishing that the required 30-day notice had properly been sent. I had lived in my home for 17 years. I had no attorney because I could not afford one, so I represented myself while trying to learn the law and appellate procedures. During this ordeal, I was dealing with serious and worsening kidney disease. I spent months filing appeals, motions, and other pleadings and trying to meet court deadlines while struggling physically and financially. Denied my 30 to fight and properly present my case, I was sent into a tail spin to try to save my home on a 5day forcible detainer.
I fought for approximately six months. Even the sheriff gave me additional time after I explained my circumstances. Ultimately, I lost my home of 17 years. I was eventually forced to abandon my appeal because I could no longer keep up with the legal requirements, and once I was removed from the property, the appeal could no longer provide the practical relief I needed. I believe I was denied due process because the required 30-day notice was never properly established/ or sent. I am now seeking legal counsel to determine what claims may be appropriate concerning the conduct of the attorneys involved and the evidence presented to the court.
What stands out most to me is that the detailed billing ledger became the very document that raised questions about the attorneys' version of events. In my opinion, they were not nearly as careful with that ledger as they were with the evidence presented regarding the alleged 30-day notice. I am sharing my experience because I believe an attorney's reputation does not automatically make every representation to a court accurate. In this case, a 59-year-old pro se defendant believes she uncovered serious inconsistencies--and those inconsistencies ultimately cost her the home she had lived in for 17 years. read more
