6 ms·

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

by 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.

by wl 10y ago

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.