This research note reports initial results of a pilot study based on a sample of 100 collection cases filed in 2017 by a single bank (WFBNA) against consumers who defaulted on credit card accounts. All collection lawsuits were prosecuted by the same law firm using the same litigation templates, including the same form affidavits, but the cases were randomly assigned to multiple district courts within a major urban jurisdiction in Texas. This research design allows for (1) a description of general patters in the processing of garden-variety consumer collection cases, and (2) for a systematic assessment of variability among multiple courts faced with cases that are alike in terms of all relevant attributes: facts, law, and modus of litigation employed by a single law firm. In terms of outcomes, the breakdown for the first 100 cases filed in 2017 that were closed as of May 20, 2019 is as follows: 37 default judgments, 24 nonsuits without prejudice, 5 nonsuits with prejudice, 21 Agreed Judgment, 7 summary judgment, 6 dismissals for want of prosecution, and not a single judgment resulting from a bench or jury trial. As for variability among the courts (26 different judges), the examined data suggests that judges affect the speed with which cases proceed to judgment, and that some judges perform at least a limited amount of quality control regardless of whether the defendant was represented by attorney or pro se. Judges routinely grant judgment for the Bank in the amounts requested, provided that proof of service is on file. In a few cases, a trial court judge modified the judgment submitted by the bank with regard to interest and contingent appellate attorney’s fees, but none of the judges altered the amount of debt claimed by the bank as owing and due, or the amount of the attorney fees claimed by the Bank’s counsel as reasonable. Not a single case resulted in a take-nothing judgment in the defendant's favor. Two cases in which defendants filed counterclaims ended in dismissal of all claims, presumably by agreement, but on terms not revealed by the public record. Agreed judgments are for the full amount alleged as owed in the Bank's pleadings, with no discount on attorney’s fees. The insights gained from this limited-scope pilot study are consistent with other empirical studies concluding that contemporary debt collection litigation against consumers does not comport with the concept of an adversarial legal system, with occasional exceptions only. Even when defendants were represented by counsel, there is no clear evidence that the ultimate outcome is any different. At best, a settlement or adverse disposition may be delayed. But this may also happen when the defendants file a general denial or a narrative pro se answer. In several instances attorneys for defendants did not respond to the Bank’s motion for summary judgment when such a motion was filed. None of the attorneys for defendants in the sample challenged the reasonableness of the attorney’s fees sworn to by the Bank’s lawyers with a counter-affidavit. Pro se litigants are not qualified to do so. Based solely on the data in the sample, the outcome was predictably in the Bank’s favor. If pro se parties or attorneys were more pro-active, however, the pattern of outcomes might be less uniform.
Read full abstract