Do you think Small-Claims Judges are prejudiced toward credit-card companies?

Question

I have been observing small-claims court here in our small county for some time. Most of the cases are credit-card companies or finance companies suing an individual for a non-paid account.

Almost all the cases result in a default judgment for the plaintiff as the defendant does not show. What I have observed, though is when a defendant challenges the suit he/she is allowed very little latitude as far as proof or evidence, that is, the judge will accept any little scrap of paper from the plaintiff as evidence but will generally disregard or reject any papers the defendant brings short of a cancelled check that they paid the debt.

Secondly, I have noticed that if the defendant is not present when the case is called, the plaintiff will get a default judgment. If the lawyer for the plaintiff is not present when the case is called, we will wait on him, sometimes as long as a hour.

I just wonder if the judge is prejudiced since she made her money collecting money before judgeship.

I just found it all interesting. I was being sued for a different type matter. My lawyer and theirs argued and scrapped like they do on tv. (I won) The debt cases were completely foriegn to me, not like on Judge Judy at all.

Answer 1

Well in the case of a no show, all the credit card company's need to do is show that there is a debt, the debtor received notice of the debt, and there is a balance due. Usually, the credit card company's are there every week (or day) so they have the rules down to a science.

When a defendant (debtor) shows up in court, usually (unless they are professional) do not understand the rules. If you are claiming the bill has been paid, then you need to provide proof. If the reason is a disputed charge then evidence needs to be submitted that 1. you disputed it; 2. the dispute was valid; and 3. that you followed procedure. The judge normally rushes the evidence through so it might seem as if he/she doesn't accept things. Evidence is usually a paper trail rather than testimony.

Usually a judge sees the debt collectors there all the time. The debtors - not really. What the judge is doing is extending a courtesy by waiting because he/she knows there usually is a reason why the card companies are late. Debtors normally do not show which is why they start. However, most judges (if a late debtor comes in) will lecture the debtor and hear the case.

I do not think it is a case of the judge being prejudiced so much as there are more and more cases on the docket and the judge is trying to get them resolved. Hope that answers your question.

Answer 2

Judges understand that lawyers have more than one client. If an attorney sends word to the judge that he has been unavoidably detained, the judge will usually wait, even if it the defendant's attorney. It has to be a good reason, however.
If a defendant in any kind of trial fails to show or be represented it is generally handled by default judgment.
I sure would like to hear what these pieces of evidence are that the judge rejects. I don't believe it. What is the problem with paying for something you bought? Or repaying money you borrowed? I think it is the judge's duty to see that merchants get paid when deadbeat buyers try to weasel out of paying.

Answer 3

If your fine with bankrupty od it, thye cant force u to pay what u dont have. or you could not even get a lawyer and tell the judge u have no money u lost all u had including ur job or whatever. tell them u can take all clothes off in court drop ur pants dow them ur schlong and say this is all i have besides tehse clothes u want that. U could contact them and tell them u r willing to settle but they have to eliminate all interest accumulated. If you have the cash pay it then When in court if a jury is present instill in their hearts sympathy for you by telling them how th ehigh interets rates have forced u to no longer pay so has the economy. And taht the credit card company is sucking the bllod of u. and since the economy has been bad u thought it would rebound and u used the card aas a lifeline. Id rdrop my pants though sya here take everything ai have i got nohting but my third leg :D

Answer 4

Credit are companies are more credible than individuals.

The waiting thing is a cause for concern, but the judge's reasons are probably more practical than anything else. Since so many defendants do not show up, she sees no point in waiting. However, most lawyers will eventually show up, so it's worth waiting.

Answer 5

What the judge is doing is making the deadbeat credit card holder pay the bill.

If you buy things on credit - you have to pay the bill.

That is a very simple concept.

Answer 6

It sure sounds like this judge is.

Answer 7

No it is standard law procedure.