Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/04/2004 09:07 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 227(JUD)
"An Act increasing the jurisdictional limit for small claims
and for magistrates from $7,500 to $10,000; increasing the
jurisdictional limit of district courts in certain civil cases
from $50,000 to $100,000; expanding the jurisdiction of
district courts; limiting magistrates from hearing certain
small claims cases; and amending Rule 11(a)(4), Alaska
District Court Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to service
of process for small claims."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Wilken stated that this legislation would increase the
jurisdictional limit of District Courts from $50,000 to $100,000.
He noted that the Senate Judiciary Committee committee substitute,
Version 23-LS0896\U, and an accompanying indeterminate fiscal note
is before the Committee.
VANESSA TONDINI, Staff to Representative Lesil McGuire, the Chair
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, read the sponsor statement into
the record as follows.
The jurisdictional limit for district courts was last raised
in 1990 when the legislature raised the limit from $35,000 to
$50,000. By raising the jurisdictional limit from $50,000 to
$100,000, this bill will allow for increases inflation and
provide increased flexibility for litigants regarding whether
to file in district court or superior court.
The jurisdictional limit on small claims court and magistrate
court was last raised in 1997 when the legislature raised the
limit from $5000 to $7500. Small claims court offers many
advantages over district court to private litigants, including
less formal discovery requirements, reduced filing fees, and
relaxed evidentiary rules. This bill will increase the limit
to $10,000.
The bill also removes prohibitions against the district court
hearing claims for false imprisonment, libel, slander, and
malicious prosecution. These restrictions were adopted shortly
after statehood. District court judges are well qualified and
there is no reason to prohibit them from hearing these types
of cases.
Finally, the bill will expand small claims jurisdiction over
out-of-state defendants. Under current law, small claims
actions against out-of-state defendants may only be brought
under the landlord-tenant act or under AS 09.05.020, which
authorizes services of process against owners or operators of
motor vehicles involved in an accident in the State. The bill
would authorize small claims jurisdiction over out-of-state
defendants under traditional long-arm principles. This
expanded long-arm jurisdiction is limited to district court
judges. Magistrates will continue to limited by the standards
set forth in current law.
Ms. Tondini summarized that the bill would implement several
"upgrades" to jurisdictions" of the Court system and would be
consistent with the Court's "general philosophy" regarding
encouraging citizen to "access lower courts in a friendly manner."
She noted that the business community supports this bill.
DOUG WOOLIVER, Administrative Attorney, Office of the
Administrative Director, Alaska Court System, noted that while the
Court System did not initiate this legislation, several changes
incorporated into this bill are consistent with the Court's general
philosophy regarding making the Courts more accessible to
litigants. However, he noted that the downside to increasing the
small claims jurisdictional limit and making the process easier,
cheaper, and more relaxed for litigants to sue people, is the
concern that judges might hear a large case that might not "have
been adequately argued," has had no briefing, and would simply
involve two people appearing before a judge. He noted that while
judges are comfortable with this process when small dollar amounts
are involved, the higher the limit is would increase the likelihood
that the resulting ruling might not be "particularly well thought
out."
Mr. Wooliver stated that the Court System's indeterminate fiscal
note takes into consideration that more out-of-state court cases
are likely and that, due to the higher limit allowed, some non-
economical cases might be heard in a small claims court. He noted
however, that when the jurisdictional level was last raised, no
significant court expense resulted.
Senator Olson asked whether, in addition to the District Court,
this legislation might affect other segments of the Court System
that operate under "the rules of civil procedure."
Mr. Wooliver responded "not directly, no." He continued that
currently, cases involving claims in excess of $50,000 must be
heard by the Superior Court, and were this bill adopted, claims up
to $100,000 could now be heard by the District Court. He clarified
that no jurisdictional issues involving the Superior Court would be
affected.
Co-Chair Green moved to report the bill from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CS HB 227 (JUD) was REPORTED from
Committee with indeterminate fiscal note #2, dated April 7, 2004
from the Alaska Court System.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|