Do not require other-party addresses unless filing rules require them

[nonprofittechy]

Context

This is an unfinished item from #102. Requiring a full address for every opposing/other party creates unnecessary friction when the filer only needs to identify the party by name and the court/EFSP does not require an address.

Goal

Require only the other party's name by default. Ask for an address only when it is actually required by the selected jurisdiction, case/party type, service workflow, or downstream EFSP filing requirements.

Acceptance criteria

• Other-party name can be entered and saved without an address when no downstream rule requires one.
• Requiredness for address fields is driven by applicable filing/service metadata or jurisdiction configuration [the YAML configuration layers that can be specified per-state and per-court/filing type], not a global blanket requirement.
• When an address is required, explain why and validate it at the point where it is needed.
• Existing/saved address information remains editable and is not discarded merely because it is optional.
• Review does not imply that a missing optional address makes the filing incomplete.
• The implementation continues to enforce genuinely required party data from Tyler/EFSP metadata.

Related

• Next LITEFile Epic #102 — Next LITEFile Epic
• Required parties aren't handled anywhere #27 — required-party handling
• Audit hidden/defaulted filing values and let filers review and override them #156 — audit hidden/defaulted/required filing values

[nonprofittechy]

Illinois's People-step feedback overlaps here on clarity around required parties: explain why a party is required and what information is actually needed. The broader case where the account holder/filer is not a party is now tracked in #197, including selecting who the filer is acting for and using account-holder info only when explicitly chosen.

[nonprofittechy]

We need to understand what is guaranteed/known here, and which default is right, and this also seems like it would need to be a jurisdiction-specific setting. It often seems that we can't learn what Tyler requires until we do a test filing. Is it safe to add this in our current YAML court/code specific settings? And if so, is the right default to make it always hidden unless defined in the YAML as something that is required, or always visible unless the YAML says it is not required?

I suspect we do not have the information to know if we can hide the address or not yet. We could use vague warnings though, perhaps "usually courts do not require this, but yours might" etc?

[nonprofittechy]

@mnewsted — tagging for visibility on this Illinois feedback item.