Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisseaton | Hacker News Reader

> It's a misuse of the legal system, and the court shouldn't allow it.

I really don't see how.

They file a case. They present an argument. The other side doesn't. What should the court do? Keep asking the other side to bother to show up? If they did that you could block any claim forever by just not showing up. That's not justice.

Our whole society's legal basis is 'show up and present your case and have it judged'. It's called the 'adversarial system' - look it up.

If it's a genuine debt, and it sounds like it is, then either pay up or argue your case in court.

View on HN

I'm not thinking about this as an individual case, or debating an individual case.

I'm talking about a business model whereby an agency systematically buys "no show debt" at a tiny fraction of face and mass produces personal bankruptcy. As the article shows. This business model (subsidised by the state, which provides the court), in 2020, is civil law.

That business model is not something the courts should play ball with. Lawyers and judges will stay within the legal rules.

In any case, I think there needs to be a debt regulator...

You can't address the business model if you can't explain how you would change how an individual case plays out.

The standard of evidence in civil court is "the preponderance of the evidence". Would you propose changing that standard, so that a debt collector's unchallenged word isn't good enough to prove their case? What exactly do you propose to do about the fact that most people default?

Should we make participation in civil cases mandatory and issue bench warrant when defendants fail to appear? Should we reduce how much income can be garnished so that garnishment is effectively useless? Should we require that every update in the case be personally served by a process server?

The business model would collapse overnight if debtors began challenging creditor plaintiffs en masse. I don't see how the failure of a defendant who has been properly served to defend their case reflects a systematic failure on the part of the courts or the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com