A run on general district court

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