A run on general district court
Change in limit didn’t prompt wave of filings, but protective order law did
By Peter Vieth
Published: January 30, 2012
Tags:
Law Firm,
General District Courts
General
district court judges and clerks anticipated a run on their courts
after the 2011 General Assembly passed several measures opening up
access to their courts.
One new law, raising the jurisdictional limit to $25,000, left court
personnel expecting a flurry of new filings, with personal injury
attorneys taking the fast track through district court on smaller-value
cases.
That hasn’t brought a wave of new litigants to general district
court, but a different new law produced a surprise and an inundation of
people seeking to use the court to get a protective order.
Legislation approved by the 2011 Assembly now allows courts to issue
protective orders in cases of dating violence, sexual assault and
stalking, even when the victim is not a member of the accused’s
household. The cases involving non-household members go to general
district court. Previously, most protective order cases were heard by
juvenile and domestic relations courts.
“That thing opened a floodgate of litigation,” said Judge Robert A.
Pustilnik of Richmond General District Court, referring to the new
protective order legislation. Court officials from various localities
said there was an initial rush of petitioners seeking protective orders
when the new law took effect July 1.
Virginia Beach lawyer Kirk Levy said the wave of litigants seeking
restraining orders were holding up hearings on the collections cases he
had filed. A petition for a protective order has top priority on the
court’s dockets, so other cases had to wait.
“Slowly but surely, it’s beginning to dwindle,” said Andre Henry
Mayfield, general district court clerk in Virginia Beach. “People are
getting settled in with it now.”
Mayfield made it clear, however, that the numbers were not dropping
to pre-July levels. He said where his court might see four to five
people a month applying for protective orders in years past, there are
10 to 15 petitioners a month now.
Court officials say many of the petitions for protective orders are
frivolous. Some petitioners have ulterior motives, such as a landlord
seeking a fast eviction, Mayfield said.
David M. Hicks, clerk of the Richmond Manchester General District
Court, said he had to process a petition filed by a woman angered
because a neighbor blew leaves into her yard. “People are using these
protective orders in absolutely absurd ways,” Hicks said.
Both clerks say they have to prepare the paperwork for such
petitions, notifying the police department and the sheriff. A deputy has
to serve the paperwork on the defendant.
“There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes work before it gets to the court,” Hicks said.
Hicks said he does not question the importance of access to
protective orders in proper cases. “Protective orders are very, very
important if they’re used in the right way. These are not,” he said.
Pustilnik feared even more unfounded petitions if legislation passes
to allow protective orders for the custody of animals. House Bill 363,
sponsored by Del. Jennifer L. McClellan, D-Richmond, is before the House
Courts committee.
Under the law that took effect in July, protective orders can target
“acts of violence, force or threat” causing injury or “reasonable
apprehension” of injury or death. While a few petitions may be testing
the limits of that definition, an advocate for victims of violence says
the new law is doing what was intended.
Gena Boyle, of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action
Alliance in Charlottesville, said victims who previously had to file
criminal warrants and try to persuade a magistrate to issue an arrest
warrant now are able to quickly seek protection from a judge.
Boyle said the revised law – crafted after two years of study – has
been particularly effective in helping college students confronted with
violence or stalking. “We just wanted to find a way that would cover
these victims,” she said.
Boyle said no figures were available yet on the number of petitions filed and issued since July.
Pressure for change grew after the 2010 death of University of
Virginia student Yeardley Love. Love’s ex-boyfriend, George Huguely, is
charged with murder in the case. He reportedly admitted to police he
broke down a locked door, shook Love and repeatedly struck her head
against a wall.
Police allegedly have evidence of earlier incidents or threats of violence by Huguely directed at Love.
P.I. docket popular in GDCs.
Virginia’s district courts seem to have taken in stride the increase
in civil cases coming from the court’s expanded jurisdiction.
“Most people thought that personal injury cases were going to go
through the roof,” but that “has not been the case,” said Virginia Beach
clerk Mayfield.
“It’s been wonderful,” said Suzette L. Hutchens of Richmond. “You get
to court quicker” in district court, she said. Presenting medical bills
with authenticating affidavits is a lot easier and cheaper than taking
doctors’ depositions. “You can try these cases in an hour,” she said.
“For the average case, it just makes more sense to bring it in the general district court,” Hutchens said.
Judges also have voiced approval, said Reston lawyer Steven M.
Garver, who chaired a committee that studied the proposed jurisdictional
change for the Boyd-Graves Conference.
While there has been some increase in case numbers, the judges
reported that attorneys seemed to know what they were doing in trying
district court cases. Judges in Fairfax asked for special notice for
cases expected to take two hours or more, but Garver said most
run-of-the-mill p.i. cases can be tried in less than two hours.
Garver said there was talk that some insurance companies – possibly
concerned about being blindsided with damages evidence – would appeal
every district court judgment to circuit court. That threat has not
materialized, according to Garver and other lawyers VLW contacted.
“The bottom line is most adjusters are just happy to have a decision made, and they can close the file,” Garver said.
“I haven’t heard of a rash of appeals,” said Roanoke lawyer Peter A.
Katt. Katt reported he maxed out a district court claim with a recent
$25,000 judgment in Botetourt County in a rear-end collision case, and
the award was not appealed.
Pustilnik, the Richmond judge, said he’s setting three to five civil
cases for trial every day. “Really I think it’s a boon to both the
plaintiffs’ and defense bars,” Pustilnik said.
One potential obstacle for defendants – the need to post a bond in
the amount of judgment for appeals to circuit court – was addressed with
a provision allowing confirmation of insurance coverage to be filed in
place of bond.
Judges split on whether you could amend cases filed before July 1 to
increase demands into the new jurisdictional territory. “Most judges
ruled you could amend,” Garver said.
Virginia Beach lawyer Kevin Duffan said he found the higher
jurisdictional cap was resulting in more cases settled rather than cases
tried. He pointed out the new jurisdictional limit is the same as the
minimum limits of Virginia auto insurance policies.
Duffan said the change has not led to clogging of the Virginia Beach
district docket. “It’s actually worked out very well,” he said.
Tim Quick, immediate past president of the Virginia Beach Bar
Association, said some judges opened up a 2 p.m. docket for the extra
contested cases to keep attorneys from having to wait long hours for
their cases to be heard.
Quick said he hasn’t seen any problems with the extra civil cases in
any of his regular venues, including Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth and
Virginia Beach.
While one argument for expanding district court jurisdiction to
$25,000 was the perceived need to keep up with inflation, the increase
is really a fundamental change from the original civil role of district
courts.
Alexandria General District Chief Judge Becky J. Moore noted the
court started in 1952 with authority to hear cases up to $1,000 in
value. Adjusting for the increase in the consumer price index since
then, the court’s jurisdiction would be capped at only $8,488 today, she
said.
Prof. Hamilton Bryson at the University of Richmond law school takes
the view that the nearly threefold increase in the civil authority of
district courts is really an effort to “decrease the circuit court
workload by offloading the cases of small value to the district court.”
Nevertheless, the change increases access to the courts, “so it’s probably a good thing,” Bryson said.
Moore, the Fairfax chief judge, said she fears the case count will
rise. “The numbers themselves may not seem significant, but these cases
are quite time-consuming,” she said.
Moore said of 25 civil cases on the Fairfax district docket one day last week, four involved claims for $25,000 in damages.
Regardless of the extra caseload, Pustilnik said he welcomes the new
faces of attorneys he now sees trying civil cases in his court. “It’s
made our docket much, much more interesting,” he said.
Please contact us if you need legal advice.
Tucker Griffin Barnes P.C.
Charlottesville, Virginia
434-973-7474
TGBLaw.com
Inquire@TGBLaw.com
