If someone has a significant contradiction between claims in the petition and the payment history the plaintiff provided in discovery, is that important enough to dismiss the case with prejudice? I'm thinking if the petition claims default on a certain date and the payment history plainly says otherwise, then that is significant. If the date of default is incorrect, then of course, the amount owed on that date is incorrect.
In the case I'm referring to, a homeowner has a letter, dated almost two months after the claimed default date, thanking him for bringing the account current and honoring his commitment to a forbearance payment. He continued to pay every month for almost a year after the claimed default date, while he waited for a loan modification. He finally quit paying when the file was processed by the servicer to start parallel foreclosure.
The amount due is uncertain as it says it may change as the loan continues to be delinquent, so maybe that's a protection for the plaintiff. However, the default date is incorrect and the plaintiff's own evidence proves it.
So the question: are the date of default and the amount owed mere claims that are meaningless to the court since the case is based on the fact that the homeowner defaulted at some point and still owes some amount?