HEARING HANDOUT: DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY OF FACTS

Hearing Date: January 9, 2026 Case: FCFCU v. Rice-Velasquez | 49D11-2501-MF-00xxxx Defendant: Cody Rice-Velasquez, Pro Se


1. JURISDICTIONAL OBJECTION (TR 60(B)(6))

The Judgment is VOID ab initio.

  • The Defect: Plaintiff failed to serve the Complaint at the Defendant’s dwelling house or usual place of abode as required by Trial Rule 4.1.
  • The Fact: Service was attempted on a third party at an office building, not the Defendant’s residence.
  • Legal Consequence: In the absence of personal jurisdiction, this Court has no discretion; the judgment must be vacated. Stidham v. Whelchel, 698 N.E.2d 1152 (Ind. 1998).

2. THE FORENSIC ACCOUNTING FAILURE

Plaintiff’s accounting contains $10,630.35 in “Strategic Overcharges.”

IssuePlaintiff ClaimForensic RealityImpact
Interest$10,725.27$7,384.05$3,341.22 Overcharge
Fall 2025 Taxes$7,681.00 (Total)$2,951.94 (Delinq)$4,729.06 Premature Charge
Pub/Admin Fees$1,094.35$284.28$810.07 Discrepancy
Attorney Fees$4,750.00$3,000.00$1,750.00 Over Sworn Limit

Total Hidden Surplus: $10,630.35 Plaintiff artificially inflated the judgment debt to effectively “zero out” the equity that should have been returned to the Defendant as a surplus under IC 32-30-10-14.


3. PROCEDURAL BAD FAITH & ABUSE OF PROCESS

  • The “Unknown Occupant” Deception: On Oct 29, 2025, Plaintiff swore to this Court that the occupants were “unknown” to justify a Writ of Assistance. This was a bad-faith tactic to avoid a standard eviction proceeding and the associated notification rights.
  • The 33-Day Writ Delay: The Court ordered a return of the Writ within 5 days (Nov 6). Plaintiff waited 33 days to execute the removal (Dec 9). This delay proves there was no “emergency,” but rather a tactical decision to displace the Defendant during winter without warning.

4. IMPACT & UNCONSCIONABILITY

  • Homelessness: Defendant is currently homeless and living in a vehicle in sub-freezing temperatures due to the illegal 12/9 removal.
  • Destitution: Plaintiff’s withholding of the $10,000+ surplus has deprived the Defendant of the funds required to secure stable housing.
  • Request for Relief: defendant respectfully requests the Court to:
    1. Vacate the default judgment for lack of service.
    2. Order the immediate return of the $10,630.35 in overcharged equity as a temporary emergency measure.
    3. Sanction Plaintiff for the “Unknown Occupant” misrepresentation.

”RECONCILIATION AT A GLANCE”

  • Plaintiff Per Diem: $27.45 (Sworn by Plaintiff)
  • Days from Judgment to Sale: 269
  • The Truth: 7,384.05** (Not $10,725.27)
  • The Question: Where did the Plaintiff get the extra $3,341.22?