The plaintiff brought a motion to "renew" an expired writ of seizure and sale, which the court clarified was properly a motion for the issuance of a fresh writ more than six years after the underlying judgment.
The motion was dismissed without prejudice due to significant concerns regarding the quality of the evidence provided, which largely consisted of inadmissible hearsay from individuals without personal knowledge, and issues with proper service on the defendant at a current address.
The court emphasized the necessity for counsel to adhere to proper evidentiary standards in written motions, even when unopposed.
