533 So. 2d 617 | Ala. | 1988
We agreed to review the Court of Civil Appeals' grant of a writ of mandamus directing the Montgomery County Circuit Court to exercise jurisdiction over this case,
"CSX obviously amended its complaint to increase the amount of damages sought and thereby ensure jurisdiction in the circuit court. Ala. Code (1975), §
12-12-31 (a) (1986 Repl.Vol.), provides that '[t]he district court shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed $1,000.'"CSX's original complaint, in which the damages it sought did not exceed $1,000, would appear to have been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court pursuant to §
12-12-31 (a). The amended complaint, however, in which the amount in controversy exceeded $1,000, would appear to fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of both the circuit and district courts. See Ala. Code (1975), §§12-11-30 (1) and12-12-30 ."
Citing Rule 15(a), A.R.Civ.P. ("[a] party may amend his pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served" (emphasis supplied)), the Court of Civil Appeals thus concluded that "the circuit court erred in transferring a case which was clearly within its concurrent jurisdiction to the district court." Respectfully, we disagree. We hold that Rule 15, A.R.Civ.P., would never have come into play if the amount in controversy, as shown in the original statement of the claim, was not within the circuit court's concurrent jurisdiction with that of the district court. Assuming, as did the Court of Civil Appeals, that CSX's $1,000.00 claim was less than the amount necessary to invoke the circuit court's jurisdiction, Ala. Code 1975, §
"The circuit court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000.00 and shall exercise original jurisdiction concurrent with the district court in all civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds $500.00, exclusive of interest and costs."
The civil jurisdiction of the district court is set out in Ala. Code 1975, §
"The original civil jurisdiction of the district court of Alabama shall be uniform throughout the state, concurrent with the circuit court, except as otherwise herein provided, and shall include all civil actions in which the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000.00 and civil actions based on unlawful detainer. . . ."
As originally adopted, §
"Small claims cases. — The district court shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all civil actions in which the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00). These actions shall be placed on a small claims docket by each district court and shall be processed according to uniform rules of simplified civil procedure as may be promulgated by the supreme court."
In transferring the instant case to the district court, the circuit court relied upon an amendment to §
We agree that if §
Again, we respectfully disagree. Two considerations are central to our holding: 1) The legislative history of §
The origin of the incongruity between §
Even more compelling, however, is the fact that the legislature left unamended §
Therefore, because the petitioner CSX's alternative ground for the issuance of the writ of mandamus is valid and establishes a clear right to relief, we affirm the Court of Civil Appeals' issuance of the writ directing the circuit court to exercise jurisdiction of the case.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and ALMON, SHORES, BEATTY, HOUSTON and STEAGALL, JJ., concur.
MADDOX and ADAMS, JJ., concur in the result.