An Investigation of Small Claims Court Proceedings and Practices

Implications and Conclusions

If the Coral Gables District Court were to be an accurate model of all such small-claims courts in the United States, it would mostly reflect positively on the nature of “the people’s court” and its justice. For resolving OS versus OS cases, there is a working, speedy system for pretrial and mediation that places both parties on a fairly level playing field. Though repeat players will always have their advantage over the common defendant, settlement is a powerful tool to reach resolution that placates both parties and prevents judgments from being too harsh on indigent defendants. The use of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) methods, though criticized for excluding working-class from “getting proper court attention,” allow any interested defendant the ability to, at a very low cost, attain a satisfactory settlement.

The relatively recent growth of the debt-purchase industry is also of consequence for the judicial process and civil justice. The reorganization of labor in debt collecting- from corporations that would normally have to dedicate precious resources to enhance and expand a litigation division to companies whose primary workload is litigation- reduces the total cost of processing small-claims suits. More importantly, these companies are mending blatant breaches of contract that would have normally in the past been too expensive for creditors to pursue and marked off as losses. Though some may complain that a suit from Asset Acceptance 6 years after a credit card company stopped chasing them for a debt is inconvenient, it still does not absolve them of an obligation for which they are responsible. Of course, by the same token, there are setbacks to justice in this recent development. The expedient nature of small-claims court does not provide equivalent protections to defendants as in other conventional courts, and though debt collectors are acting well within the boundaries of the law, many unaware debtors default to some claims that would be thrown out in trial because of poor documentation.[4]

Finally, visiting the court permitted me to understand first-hand the most important step of a low-level civil trial, making it a worthwhile experience that will definitely take me there again for more research in the future. Aside from the processes and formalities, the visit also provided a closer and direct look at the dynamics of plaintiff and defendant characters and how they affected outcomes in the court. All things considered, an efficient, fair, and functional small-claims system is a necessary building block for civil justice. Most people cannot easily dismiss $300 in damages as unworthy of legitimate pursuit; creating a system that is in any way not as just as one for $100,000 claims implies that those who deal in the hundreds of thousands are more important than those who deal in the hundreds. Rejecting that idea and establishing fair courts at all levels, whether they are for a letter of apology, $20, or $20 million, should be the first step in any society’s pursuit of civil justice.


[1] Tarr, p. 226

[2] Tarr, P. 232

[3] Hwang, Small Claims: Once-Ignored Consumer Debts Are Focus of Booming Industry.                 

[4] Hwang, Small Claims

Bibliography

Tarr, G. Alan. Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking. 4th edition.

Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth, 2006

Hwang, Suein. “Small Claims: Once-Ignored Consumer Debts Are Focus of Booming

Industry.” The Wall Street Journal. 25 October 2004                       

Pages ( 2 of 2 ): « Previous1 2

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *