![]() Evidence Code §777(c) limits who can be in the courtroom for a non-natural person party to an officer or employee of the company. Defendants request that only actual parties to the case be permitted to sit with counsel at the tables. ![]() In the courtroom, there are tables for the parties and their respective counsel from which to present their case. Witness Real Estate Agent Should Be Excluded from Sitting at Counsel’s Table During Court Proceedings Because He Is Not an Employee of Bank of America ![]() (California Evidence Code §777(a).) As REAL ESTATE AGENT is at best a mere percipient witness, he should be removed from the courtroom unless and until it is his turn to testify while other witnesses are testifying. It is common practice in the courtroom, during trial, to remove other witnesses from the courtroom during the testimony of a witness. Witness Real Estate Agent Should Be Excluded from the Courtroom During the Testimony of Other Witnesses Agent raised in his declaration was regarding occupancy of the home, a fact which is not in dispute. Agent’s testimony, if not completely eliminating it. Defendants seek an order in limine limiting Mr. Agent try to testify as to matters of which he has no personal knowledge and to which there is no evidentiary basis. Defendants have reason to believe that, in this case, Bank of America will try to cut corners by having Mr. Banks are now cutting corners in their presentation of evidence to support their foreclosures and the eviction of the former homeowners and their tenants. (California Evidence Code §702.) The newspapers are full of articles revealing how Bank of America, along with other major lending institutions, cut corners in their processing of foreclosures over the past two years. It is fundamental in the rules of evidence that a witness may only testify as to those matters to which that witness has personal knowledge. Witness Real Estate Agent Should Be Limited to Testifying Only to Matters to Which He Has Personal Knowledge only as the real estate agent hired to list and sell the property if Bank of America recovers possession. Agent’s declaration sets forth his limited role in this matter. Bank of America also seems to allege it served a three day notice to vacate on the Defendants, though its allegations in this regard are disputed, uncertain and contradicted by other evidence. Bank of America will assert that it went through the proper foreclosure procedures to take back title to the property. ![]() Plaintiff Bank of America has brought this eviction action seeking to gain possession of the Defendants’ home following a purported foreclosure on the property. He should not be permitted to play a role in this trial inconsistent with his actual position in the matter, which, according to his own declaration, is only as the real estate agent hired to list and sell the property if Bank of America reclaims possession. Agent is not an employee of Bank of America, he was not involved in the foreclosure of the property, and he was not involved in service of any eviction notice. Agent has no personal knowledge of relevant facts for this case. It has also come to our attention that lending institutions bringing eviction cases to court following evictions in this county are routinely showing up to trial with nothing more than a local real estate agent that has no actual personal knowledge of the underlying facts supporting the case. Agent as their primary witness to establish the facts necessary to prevail in this action. Based on representations made by Plaintiff’s attorney, and by real estate agent REAL ESTATE AGENT himself, it is believed that Bank of America may try to rely on Mr. This is an eviction action brought by Bank of America following the foreclosure of the Defendants’ home.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |