I'm starting this thread because I have several "alleged" debts that could qualify for small claims (under $7500) in my state.
With the exception of 3 large accounts, the remainder of my current unpaid accounts are under the small claims limit. This means it is relatively cheap for the plaintiff to file. I did have local creditors move quite quickly to small claims and these accounts have been satisfied through mediation or judgment (including wage garnishment.)
Why is it that other large national companies do not make use of local small claims courts?
I'm not sure how the small claims process in my state relates to "attorney fees." Is it possible that in small claims, if the plaintiff adds unecessary "fees" that the judge will ignore these and consider the actual debt amount and only reasonable recovery fees?
In Oregon, every small claims debtor has the right to request a small claims mediation. If agreement cannot be reached, then a future date is set for a hearing with a judge. Does the cost of having to make 2-3 trips to my local courthouse potentially prohibit the underlying revenue/cost algorithm used by the major CA legal firms?
Is it possible that an attorney representing a national creditor might sue in a larger district state court but then have the venue forced into small claims under state laws? In such a matter, the presiding court officer might not be as free with tacking on additional "fees" asked for by the plaintiff.
I'm just asking these questions. You don't need to be a brain surgeon in my state to file a small claims. Why on earth don't national creditors/CA's go the small claims route. Any ideas?
With the exception of 3 large accounts, the remainder of my current unpaid accounts are under the small claims limit. This means it is relatively cheap for the plaintiff to file. I did have local creditors move quite quickly to small claims and these accounts have been satisfied through mediation or judgment (including wage garnishment.)
Why is it that other large national companies do not make use of local small claims courts?
I'm not sure how the small claims process in my state relates to "attorney fees." Is it possible that in small claims, if the plaintiff adds unecessary "fees" that the judge will ignore these and consider the actual debt amount and only reasonable recovery fees?
In Oregon, every small claims debtor has the right to request a small claims mediation. If agreement cannot be reached, then a future date is set for a hearing with a judge. Does the cost of having to make 2-3 trips to my local courthouse potentially prohibit the underlying revenue/cost algorithm used by the major CA legal firms?
Is it possible that an attorney representing a national creditor might sue in a larger district state court but then have the venue forced into small claims under state laws? In such a matter, the presiding court officer might not be as free with tacking on additional "fees" asked for by the plaintiff.
I'm just asking these questions. You don't need to be a brain surgeon in my state to file a small claims. Why on earth don't national creditors/CA's go the small claims route. Any ideas?
Comment