As noted, I did that, when I filed my defence. Court acknowledged it and ordered me to pay until the settlement conference. The conference was not cancelled, so I'm assuming the plaintiff rejected the offer, though I don't know that's true based on what people have posted.
You really don't seem to get that there are two parties in play here. Based on your response to rubmeister I really am beginning to wonder if you are just stupid, as opposed to being a deadbeat. I leave open the possibility that you are both however.
In order for this case to settle YOU BOTH HAVE TO AGREE. The idea of a settlement conference is that one, OR BOTH, parties may need to hear some things from a judge that will get the parties to settlement. Maybe you are right - maybe you only owe the plaintiff $3k - maybe the plaintiff needs a judge to explain to them why the most they are owed is $3k and that is what will get them to accept the settlement proposal. Maybe you are wrong, maybe you owe the $5k, the mere fact that you say you don't owe $5k means absolutely nothing - the plaintiff says you do owe it. Why would the court accept your word over that of the plaintiff's? Or visa versa? The court does not know either of you and does not know anything about your case besides what has been pleaded. The settlement conference is an opportunity for a judge to learn more about the case and educate the parties as to the possible and likely outcomes of a trial. It is not just a case of judges using "stern looks and admonishments". If your position is as reasonable as you say it is than you should be dying to get to a settlement conference because a judge will not be impressed with a plaintiff who is committed to pursuing a case has no merit and will, very likely, use stern looks and admonishments to try to convince the plaintiff to accept your offer. The judge is not going to do this if you don't show up because the judge is going to have no way to assess your credibility.
Your insistance that you know the best way to get this matter resolved (i.e., this insistence that the settlement conference is a waste of time) does nothing to enhance your credibility with the plaintiff or the court. Earlier you said you could not attend the settlement conference (which, as rubmeister pointed out, was scheduled months ago). Now you are just arguing that it is a waste of time. Your continued arguments that the settlement conference is a waste of time give rise to suspicions that that is your true reason for not wanting to attend and that your "business meeting" reason is just so much bs. So now there is a good chance you are both a deadbeat and a liar. Why would the court or the plaintiff be inclined to trust you at all?
Like rubmeister pointed out, by your own admission you have already torched he plaintiff for $3k. Now you don't even want to pay that - you want to make "payments", because that is what is convenient for you. The plaintiff may want, or need, the $3k right now and not feel like accepting payments. Or, based on past performance on your part, they may not trust you to continue making payments.
If you really want the matter settled pay the plaintiff $3k, plus interest to present date, plus his court filing fee in a lump sum right now. Get your cancelled cheque and then let the plaintiff try to prove that you owe them an additional $2k. If you are right the exercise will only end up costing the plaintiff more money in costs.
