41–50 of 232 posts
If I'm reading correctly, the key bit is: ----- Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records. Costello said he never received the requests for admis…
Would be nice to have a 'loser pays' court system for civil trials. These kinds of trolls would go away quickly.
The problem with 'loser pays' is that it can actually encourage frivolous litigation like this. Often there are civil suits where the defendant and plaintiff agree that there are some valid claims, but they disagree on the specifics and amount of the damages. If the plaintiff knows that eventually they will 'win' their fees and costs regardless, they have an incentive to disagree with settlement offers. It looks like…
If I'm reading correctly, the key bit is: ----- Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records. Costello said he never received the requests for admis…
Not likely the case. The rules of civil procedure establish the various methods of lawful service of process, as a result there are a lot of safe guards. In fact, it is more likely a Plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed for failing to properly serve the Defendant within the proper amount of time after filing suit than actually collecting on a default judgment where there was improper service of process.
In this particular case, if the Defendant can show the Complaint and admissions were improperly served, and the Plaintiff knew or should have known his claims were not supported by fact, he could be sanctioned, including, but not limited to: a) all the legal fees it took the defendant to vacate the default judgment; and b) a dismissal of the plaintiffs lawsuit.
>If someone sues you and you don't respond, you risk a default judgment against you.
Definitely. Plaintiffs can also establish to the Court the Defendant is actively evading service, but there are many legitimate reasons one can't serve a Defendant. Still, even in the event of defaults the Courts will readily Vacate (set aside) default judgments in circumstances including, but not limited to: 1. improper service; and/or 2. defenses on the merits.
This article has persuaded me to never sell anything on Craigslist. Okay, the odds of running into a troll are tiny, but for a few bucks, it's just not worth the risk. Maybe Craigslist and similar sites need to start offering some kind of free insurance policy against trolls.
You should also never walk on a sidewalk, for fear of bumping into someone who trips and falls and sues you for personal negligence. You may be safe if you insure for this, though. Ask your Attorney.
If I'm reading correctly, the key bit is: ----- Because Costello did not respond to all three requests for admissions within 30 days of receiving them, and did not ask for an extension of time, as required by Indiana trial rules, Costello admitted to the liabilities and damages by default. He also did not appear at a July 2013 hearing, according to court records. Costello said he never received the requests for admis…
That's assuming Zavodnik sent the requests via certified, registered mail. Zavodnik could have easily scribbled the address in unreadable gibberish and slapped a simple 1st class stamp on, in which case they would never have actually been delivered. Costello claims he never received anything.
Would be nice to have a 'loser pays' court system for civil trials. These kinds of trolls would go away quickly.
'loser pays' has a couple disadvantages: * It encourages people to pick the best, most expensive lawyer in town for every case no matter the expense, because your opponent will be picking up the tab. * It discourages people from using the courts to resolve their disputes, which means people without resources tend not to get any justice. If, say, your landlord steals your $1500 security deposit for no good reason, are…
> It encourages people to pick the best, most expensive lawyer in town for every case no matter the expense, because your opponent will be picking up the tab.
The court determines whether fees being claimed by the winner are reasonable. Bar associations (or the local equivalent) publish fee scales, and the courts will often require winners to cover a portion of their expenses if they determine them to be excessive.
If a litigant was found to be deliberately using the most expensive legal representation in an attempt to bankrupt the other party they'd almost certainly be sanctioned.
> If, say, your landlord steals your $1500 security deposit for no good reason, are you really willing to risk $5000 in lawyer's fees over $1500?
Most loser pays systems offer similar small claims courts, which don't require lawyer. So your $1,500 dispute would go there, rather than to a trial court.
> It makes the courts a weapon of last resort rather than the standard dispute-resolution mechanism
You have misunderstood what the courts are. They are a measure of last resort. Ask any judge or lawyer: courts expect parties in a trial to attempt to settle. That includes going to non-binding arbitration and making reasonable settlement offers. Courts take a very dim view of parties that don't attempt to settle.
In fact, if the loser made a pre-trial offer that was higher than the amount eventually awarded, the courts will often make the winner pay some or all of their own costs. This is on the basis the winner has wasted the court's time: they had a better offer, and they refused to take it.
Stupid question: if the printer was worth $40 ($75 with shipping) how come the damages are worth $30k ? Even if Costello was right I cannot see how "damages" suffered could exceed those 75 dollars by such a huge margin. In Europe even if he had won the case he would have been awarded $75 in damages, and probably another $50 in legal costs, that's all. Not possible to win $30k out of thin air. But the difference is th…
That part is about the admissions, where the plaintiff requested the defendant admit damages were 30k (or whatever), and anything not responded to is considered admitted.
Would be nice to have a 'loser pays' court system for civil trials. These kinds of trolls would go away quickly.
'loser pays' has a couple disadvantages: * It encourages people to pick the best, most expensive lawyer in town for every case no matter the expense, because your opponent will be picking up the tab. * It discourages people from using the courts to resolve their disputes, which means people without resources tend not to get any justice. If, say, your landlord steals your $1500 security deposit for no good reason, are…
This article has persuaded me to never sell anything on Craigslist. Okay, the odds of running into a troll are tiny, but for a few bucks, it's just not worth the risk. Maybe Craigslist and similar sites need to start offering some kind of free insurance policy against trolls.