Thе defendant appeals the judgment of the Windsor Superior Court dismissing his counterclaim under the Consumer Fraud Act for $6,930.45 and remanding the plaintiff’s complaint for $500 to small claims court.
The plaintiff filed an action in small claims court in March of 1982 to recover $443.17 for repair wоrk it had done on the defendant’s automobile. The defendant counterclaimed for $6,930.45 under the Consumer Fraud Act, 9 V.S.A. §§ 2451-2462, claiming that the plaintiff hаd made false representa
We think the superior court was incorrect in deciding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Title 4 VS.A. § 113 gives the superior court “original and exclusive jurisdiction of all original civil actions, except those made cognizable by the district court . . . .” Title 12 V.S.A. § 5531 (a) states that “[t]hе [small claims] procedure shall not be exclusive/but shall be alternative to the formal procedure begun by the filing of a complaint.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it is apparent that both the superior courts and the district courts (small claims procedure) have subject matter jurisdiction over civil actions up to the small claims jurisdictional amount.
Chapter 187 of Title 12 of the Vermont Statutes Annotаted deals with small claims procedure. The chapter does not address specifically the issue of whether a counterclaim may be filed, or whether the case may be transferred to superior court if the counterclaim exceeds the jurisdictionаl limit. Title 12 V.S.A. § 5531 (a) states that the Vermont Supreme Court shall make rules “providing for a simple, informal and inexpensive procedure” for thе determination of small claims cases. Pursuant to § 5531(a), this Court promulgated D.C.C.R. 80.3, which governs small claims procedures. D.C.C.R. 80.3 (a) provides that
[s] mаll claims procedure shall be governed by statute and by this rule. Other provisions of the District Court Civil Rules are applicable only insofar as they provide for simple, informal, and inexpensive procedure or as they are specifically incorporatеd by this rule.
The defendant argues that under ,D.C.C.R. 80.3(a), D.C.C.R. 13 and D.C.C.R. 76 are applicable to small claims procedures. D.C.C.R. 13 provides for the filing of pеrmissive counterclaims, and D.C.C.R. 76 provides for the transfer of district court cases to superior court whenever an amended cоmplaint or counterclaim demanding relief in excess of the jurisdictional limit is filed.
Neither D.C.C.R. 13 nor D.C.C.R. 76 is specifically incorporated into the procedure governing small claims, and the defendant does not make this claim. Rather, the defendant argues that D.C.C.R. 13 and D.C.C.R. 76 are inсorporated into small claims procedure because they promote the simple, informal and inexpensive resolutiоn of small claims. The defendant also points out that such incorporation would promote judicial economy by eliminating multiplе litigation.
We disagree with the defendant’s claim. The defendant’s permissive counterclaim, which was based on transactions that were unrelated to those upon which the plaintiif’s original action was based, introduced considerable complexity into the cаse. After the counterclaim was filed, the case was transferred to superior court and the Vermont Rules
The defendant points out that the superior court has jurisdiction оver his counterclaim. We agree. Since the defendant’s counterclaim was for $6,930.45, the defendant correctly states that the superior court has jurisdiction over his counterclaim, and the superior court was therefore incorrect in ruling that it did not have such jurisdiсtion. The issue on appeal, however, is not whether the superior court has jurisdiction over the counterclaim; the issue is whether a small claims case may be transferred to a superior court. For the reasons stated above, we hold that it may not.
The order of the Windsor Superior Court is vacated and the complaint and counterclaim are remanded to the small claims court for disposition not inconsistent with the views expressed in this opinion.
Notes
Note that we do not address the district court’s general civil jurisdiction. 4 V.S.A. § 437. The district court’s general civil jurisdiction is concurrent with that оf the superior court “where the ad damnum is over $200.00 and not more than $5,000.00.” Id. Unlike actions under the small claims procedure, D.C.C.R. 80.3, civil actiоns in district court under 4 V.S.A. § 437 are governed by the District Court Civil Rules. D.C.C.R. 1. Thus, the simple inexpensive procedure the legislature authorized in 12 V.S.A. § 5531(a) is an alternative to the “formal procedure” of both the Rules of Civil Procedure and the District 'Court Civil Rules.