|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||
2002 FINAL STATELEGISLATIVE PROGRAM MIDDLE RANGE ISSUE ISSUE: JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNTS SUMMARY: Dollar thresholds and ceilings for determining the jurisdiction for settling cases and the right to demand a jury trial are a topic of discussion in almost every recent session of the Maryland General Assembly. In 1991, legislation expanded the exclusive original civil jurisdiction of District Court of the maximum amount per claim from $10,000 to $20,000 in particular cases. Another bill was approved that amended the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgements Act to permit the option of filing a foreign judgement in either District or Circuit Court when the amount in controversy is between $2500 and $20,000. In 1992, a constitutional amendment was passed to increase from $500 to $5000 the minimum monetary amount in controversy required in order for a party to demand a jury trial in a civil proceeding. The success of this amendment led to the introduction of a bill in 1993 and 1994 that would have raised the maximum dollar amount of small claim actions from $2500 to $5000. These measures were soundly defeated in the House Judiciary Committee. In 1995, a bill to provide for the exclusion of interest and costs in determining the amount in controversy failed because the measure also included a $10,000 rise in the ceiling for District Court jurisdiction in these cases. Arguments in favor and against tampering with jurisdictional amounts center on maintaining balance in the respective courts and protecting the rights of the parties involved in the actions. Advocates of higher minimum amounts required to move cases to Circuit Court emphasize the benefits of dispensing justice in the speedier and less expensive District Court and the need to adjust the dollar figures periodically to account for inflationary changes. Supporters of lower thresholds stress the importance of basic rights (e.g., jury trials), rules of discovery and the possibility that a disproportionate number of litigants will not be satisfied with their day in court. Legislation filed at the request of the MSBA to exclude costs and interest in determining the amount in controversy passed the General Assembly in 1996. A bill to change the amount in controversy threshold from $5000 to $10,000 in order to demand a jury trial in a civil action passed in 1998 and was ratified by the voters in November, 1998. Another measure raising the jurisdictional amount for District Court from $20,000 to $25,000 also was approved. In 2000, a bill to raise the amount in controversy of civil cases over which the District Court and circuit courts have concurrent jurisdiction from $2500 to $10,000 failed, as did legislation raising the jurisdictional amount for small claims cases to $10,000. A third measure giving the District Court exclusive jurisdiction in dishonored check cases regardless of the amount passed in the General Assembly but was vetoed by the Governor. In 2001 the dishonored check case legislation passed once again, and the General Assembly also approved a bill to raise the amount for small claims actions from $1,000 to $2,500. Following the session, however, the Governor vetoed both of these measures. MSBA 2002 POSITION: Oppose any changes in jurisdictional amounts unless compelling evidence is presented supporting the need for a change. SAMPLE LEGISLATION:
|
||||||||||
