7 ms·

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 di

• baldfat 10y ago
  Default in court is just broken. Facts matter more then did someone show up. This is just broken.
  • wl 10y ago
    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.
    • jimktrains2 10y ago
      What about simply being held in contempt instead of being found guilty?
      • jeffmould 10y ago
        This is actually an option in some courts if a plaintiff asks. I had a friend in Florida who owed a credit card bill the card company sued him. He missed the court date, his wife was in the hospital, and a warrant was issued by the judge for contempt of court. About a month later he got pulled over for speeding and was arrested on the spot. He had to post a bail that was released when he attended the new court date for the original claim. Ironically, he ended up winning the entire case on a statute of limitations technicality.
    • texuf 10y ago
      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.
      • mikeash 10y ago
        How do you decide which cases are worthy of getting past the filing stage without holding a trial for the trial?
        • nitrogen 10y ago
          Not a lawyer, but isn't that what pre-trial hearings are for?
    • pierrebai 10y ago
      You're setting up both a strawman and a false dichotomy. People are not arguing that you should win by not showing up. (Unless the suit is clearly fraudulent.) It's just that the default judgment should not be so disproportionate. There is no reason to give a 30K judgment about a 40$ printer. That's almost a 1000x multiplier. A 400$ judgment would have sent the right signal without being crippling.
    • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >If you can avoid adverse judgements by just not showing up for court // That's not what the parent said though. If you don't show up IMO the court should not take any default position but should decide the case on the facts put before it. That's not avoiding an adverse judgement, that's just not assuming one side is right just because the other side hasn't presented its case.
      • jeffmould 10y ago
        That doesn't work either. What happens, for example, if I sue you, you don't show up, I tell the judge you owe me a million dollars and show him a bill I printed on my computer that morning for a million dollars. You aren't there to tell the judge otherwise, so going on the "facts" I present doesn't solve the problem either.
        • talmand 10y ago
          Well, if I were the judge on that case, I would simply ask if you had any evidence to show that the bill presented was not printed on your computer that morning and actually was presented to the other party. Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required.
          • phil21 10y ago
            > Just presenting something in court does not make it a fact, actual real evidence is required. It actually kinda does... If the other party does not challenge it. If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact? That's the truth as far as the court is concerned. However, the overall point I believe still stands. Weigh the case based on the evidence presented - if it later turns out that a plaintiff committed fraud to get a favorable ruling you now have actual evidence of foul play on the record.
            • pbhjpbhj 10y ago
              >If I show up in court with a bill that shows you owe me a million dollars, I attest that we agreed to it, and you don't challenge that fact? That's the truth as far as the court is concerned. // Absolutely not. A court shouldn't sit on "anything said that isn't challenged is 100% true", it should look in a tort case on the balance of probabilities. IMO courts should attempt to discover what is true and rule on that, not attempt to find who can afford to pay for the best lawyer.
• opticalflow 10y ago
  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.
  • giarc 10y ago
    Wouldn't the onus be on Zavodnik to prove he sent the documents by registered mail?
    • rdtsc 10y ago
      That is if he wanted those delivered. I think the idea was he didn't because he wanted to get the default judgement.
      • jjnoakes 10y ago
        Whether he wanted them delivered or not, the legal system should require proof on behalf of the server that the person being served was served correctly. Basic first class mail should never suffice.
        • rdtsc 10y ago
          It should but it doesn't obviously. Perhaps a video recording of delivery and asking for a signature should be required. Obviously some defendants could just start running away and refuse to sign, thus delaying the lawsuit forever. But also throwing the packet of paper in a mail with a stamp or dropping it on the front porch while yelling "you've been served" is also not quite cutting it. Something in the middle is needed.
          • jjnoakes 10y ago
            > It should but it doesn't obviously. I think you've lost track of the conversation in this thread.
• vtlynch 10y ago
  Ignoring the requests was certainly dumb, and he is at fault for that. But a $30k penalty for that is excessive.
  • ikeboy 10y ago
    Which is why appeals are a thing.
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• will_brown 10y ago
  >If, though, Zavodnik has figured out a way to serve people requests without them actually knowing about it... Well, that seems like a much larger legal loophole that needs closing. 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.
  • cortesoft 10y ago
    I don't know, my buddy works as a Process Server, and I can imagine lots of situations where the person never actually receives the paperwork. He only has to try to serve the papers a few times, and then can leave them. If the defendant were out town for a few weeks, he would never get it. He doesn't have to check ID, so someone could say they were the person, he would hand it over, and be done with it. That person might never hand the papers to the right person. I don't think assuming papers served always get to the right person is a fair assumption.
    • will_brown 10y ago
      I think I addressed most of your concerns: > 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. >I don't think assuming papers served always get to the right person is a fair assumption. It is a fair assumption, because that is what the rules require, and your friend or any other process server must sign an affidavit under oath and penalty of perjury for the exact steps they took to serve a party. Now assumptions be damn, you are right service won't always be done properly, but I mention safeguards such as a Motion to Vacate Default Judgments for lack of proper service. >He doesn't have to check ID, so someone could say they were the person, he would hand it over, and be done with it. That person might never hand the papers to the right person. Because you used right person you may or may not be acknowledging the fact that the actual party (defendant) in not necessarily the right person to serve or the only person who can be served to qualify as valid service of process. For example, if I sue a company I don't generally serve the company I serve their Registered Agent (ironically from time to time the Registered Agent is the same company as the defendant); more generally I can serve anyone residing at the defendants residence who is over 15 years old (FL rule); or I can serve a defendant's employer instead of the defendant.
• phil21 10y ago
  > If someone sues you and you don't respond, you risk a default judgment against you. 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-stateespecially-if-you-are-a-debt-collector/ http://caveatemptorblog.com/647/minnesota-is-a-friendly-stat...
  • knodi123 10y ago
    > 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 Jesus christ, what kind of life do you lead?!? I'd be terrified to even be served once, let alone to feel it necessary to set up a sting to uncover a conspiracy between process servers and evil litigants. Hope you manage to stay sane and safe!
• scott_s 10y ago
  From the judgement (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05231602nhv.pdf http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05231602nhv.pdf): "More fundamentally, the plaintiff in General Motors Corp. did not ask the defendant to admit liability 400, 4000, or 8000 times greater than the amount originally in dispute, as Zavodnik did here. Zavodnik’s misuse of Rule 36 is plain. He did not send requests claiming $30,000 and $300,000 and $600,000 in damages because he believes those figures are legally justified and thought Costello might agree; he sent them because he hoped Costello would not respond, rendering the matters admitted by operation of Rule 36. An important purpose of the rule is to more quickly and efficiently reach a resolution based on the actual facts; Zavodnik used the rule as a way to avoid such a resolution. The trial court’s partial denial of Costello’s motion to withdraw served to ratify Zavodnik’s blatant abuse of the rule." Zavodnik was using these admission of discovery as a weapon. Note that these are not suits themselves; Zavodnik is clearly trying to abuse corners of the legal system for his own benefit. It's unrealistic to assume a lay-person will know the full legal ramifications of such things, particularly after already winning a case related to the matter. The most recent judge recognizes this, disagrees with you, and has overturned these admissions.
• billforsternz 10y ago
  >If Costello just ignored these requests.....this is kind of on him. I disagree. If someone is trolling outrageously with something that is clearly of no merit ($30000 for a $40 printer) ignoring them should be an option.