1. ===
Link to more Creditwrench links
Anjetta
"notice of hearing' sued by credit card company
Hi there
My husband is being sued over a credit card debt which has been bought by Hudson & Keyse. We received a letter
stating we have a Notice of Hearing before a judge.
We responded to the original summons with a Motion to Dismiss based on the original contract not being included i
the summons (it stated that it was attached), and that the total due is different in the several places in the summons.
They also do not have the correct name on the summons...
I know that my husbands wages can not be attached due to Florida Law. He is the only one supporting our house
hold.
They filed the suit one month before the SOL.
We have $283 left over each month after paying our bills which covers pet care, any 'extra' (clothes, son activities
etc.) We have NOTHING in savings.
Can you tell me what to expect at this hearing? Any advice on what I should bring?
The plaintiff will be appearing telephonically and will initiate the phone call...
This means they will have no other 'evidence' correct? Without the original paper work will it be a matter of our wo
vs theirs?

2. R
E
P
L
Y
The hearing was set to argue the Motion.
You can oppose the Telephonic Hearing.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE (TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY OF
WITNESS)
Defendant, appearing pro se, moves in limine pursuant to Rule 2.530(d)(1),(2) of the
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration for an order barring the taking of testimony of
unidentified witnesses by telephone at the trial in this cause.
Telephonic testimony would impair the court’s ability to (1) ensure that witnesses are
properly sworn and competent to testify, (2) ensure that witnesses are testifying from
personal knowledge rather than reading inadmissible materials into the record, (3)
determine what documents and records the witness is referring to in testimony, and (4)
assess the witnesses’ credibility.
Rule 2.530 (d)(1) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration permits testimony to
be taken by means of communication equipment, including telephones, “if all the
parties consent.” Plaintiff has not sought or obtained such consent, nor has it named the
witnesses who seek to testify by means of communication equipment, specified the
topic of their testimony, or identified what facilities are available for swearing of oaths
and reference to documentary evidence.
For all these reasons, Defendant requests that the court enter an order limiting
testimony at hearing to that of witnesses who are present in court.