Would be nice to have a 'loser pays' court system for civil trials. These kinds of trolls would go away quickly.
There's also rules about what reasonable legal costs are, to deter major bill padding.
51–60 of 232 posts
Would be nice to have a 'loser pays' court system for civil trials. These kinds of trolls would go away quickly.
There's also rules about what reasonable legal costs are, to deter major bill padding.
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…
There are entire companies set up with the purpose of suing people who don't respond. They purposefully use bad law to operate these mills, and absolutely no one seems to actually care. Google pocket filing[1] if you want to see those that abuse this the most.
In my state serving someone (for small claims) is simply tossing a first class letter in the mail (no tracking or registration required) to the "last known" address. Well, last known address is trivial to game - just pull a credit report send that letter to an address you know they no longer live at and attest to the judge you did your best. Or send them something that looks very much like spam mail, so hopefully they don't even open it and toss it into the trash.
When you create massive incentives to cheat what outcome do you expect to get? Legally serving someone without them knowing is trivial, and I'd argue becoming the normal default behavior for petty litigants like debt collection lawsuit mills.
There are zillions of ways around process serving, from petty little games like the above all the way down to hiring corrupt process servers. The latter almost always get away with it, and I've literally recorded them tossing paperwork in the trash without ever knocking on my door while attesting to the court I was properly served. The court seemed to think this was completely normal and didn't blink an eye.
Basically process serving is entirely broken and relies on the plaintiff serving you being an 'officer of the court' who would never even think about doing anything illegal or immoral! Literally that is the sole protection most defendants get - a piece of paper submitted to the court that someone really really totally served you - honest, and they are double-dog dare you not lying, promise! This piece of paper is treated as gospel by judges, even when you have video evidence showing otherwise.
My few experiences with the American legal system basically have shown me the entire process is designed around corruption and getting "free" judgments outside of court by intimidation/shady tactics around having you lose on a technicality before you even show up. Once in court if you have money to defend yourself you generally do alright - but good luck getting there when the entire system is designed to keep you out of court and ensure you are at a disadvantage before you even start.
1: http://caveatemptorblog.com/647/minnesota-is-a-friendly-stat...
Two thoughts: 1. The plaintiff exploited a loophole in the Indiana small claims rule regarding "res judicata," which normally acts to prevent a party from re-litigating a decided matter. [The rule states]( http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/small_claims/ ), "A judgment shall be res judicata only as to the amount involved in the particular action and shall not be considered an adjudication of any fact at issue in any o…
If Trump was president this guy would never have gotten into this country in the first place.
Had this been me, at some point I'd have driven to the bar, and asked the biggest guys I could find if they'd take $500 to show up at the guy's house and scare the living crap out of him. Escalate accordingly. There aren't that many situations left in this country that call for intimidation / violence, but malicious litigation is one of them.
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…
Ignoring the requests was certainly dumb, and he is at fault for that. But a $30k penalty for that is excessive.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you can avoid adverse judgements by just not showing up for court, you incentivize people to not show up. That's not any more fair. There has to be something to lose for not showing up and default is what the legal system has chosen.
In what world is an allegedly broken used printer that has since been thrown away worth a years salary? This shit should have never gotten past a filing stage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wouldn't the onus be on Zavodnik to prove he sent the documents by registered mail?
Had this been me, at some point I'd have driven to the bar, and asked the biggest guys I could find if they'd take $500 to show up at the guy's house and scare the living crap out of him. Escalate accordingly. There aren't that many situations left in this country that call for intimidation / violence, but malicious litigation is one of them.
The problem with that is that they can sue for assault, intimidation, harassment, or any other valid laws that apply in those circumstances. Thus landing you not only a large lawsuit, but also a possible criminal charge as well. If you want laws against malicious litigation, campaign for them, but intimidating people because you believe the litigation to be malicious is childish at best.