Valuing a case when filing causes concern for some civil lawyers
A new amendment to a civil procedure form that requires lawyers to state the value of their case when filing some civil suits is causing some reservations.
Jacksonville attorney Wayne Hogan told the Florida Courts E-Filing Authority Board on January 27 that the information requested on the civil cover sheet is contrary to a 1975 law governing personal injury and wrongful death cases and may also conflict with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.100(d).
Thomas S. Edwards, Jr., another Jacksonville attorney, filed comments with the Supreme Court the same day expressing similar reservations. Hogan also filed comments with the Court on January 28. Also filing on January 28 and expressing similar concerns were attorneys representing the Morgan & Morgan law firm and the Florida Justice Association.
At issue is Rule of Civil Procedure Form 1.997 (Civil Cover Sheet), which the Supreme Court amended on November 11. The court was responding to a legislative change earlier in the year raising the maximum civil jurisdiction for county courts from $15,000 to $30,000 as of January 1. The amount is scheduled to rise again to $50,000 on January 1, 2023.
In order to track the effect of the change and estimate how the next increase will impact county and civil court caseloads, the court amended the form requiring lawyers to put a value on their cases during the filing process. The mandate has been incorporated into a question on the court system’s electronic portal that lawyers use when filing court documents.
The portal takes the information and automatically fills out the civil cover sheet, but will not accept a filing if the case value information isn’t provided.
Because it had not been previously noticed, the court set a 75-day comment period on the form change.
“The main problem that practitioners are encountering is an attempt to put in a figure [in the box provided by the portal]. There is nothing outside a dollar sign and number that can be put into the cover sheet answer,” Hogan said. “You can’t put in a plus sign or a minus sign or an asterisk with a note.”
That causes problems because a 1975 law, F.S. §786.042, bars lawyers from claiming a specific amount of general damages in a personal injury or wrongful death case, although they can set an amount for special damages and say the damage amount meets the jurisdictional limit for the court. Hogan said the purpose of that law was to prevent lawyers from claiming an unrealistically high amount in hopes of generating publicity about the case.
In his comment to the court, Edwards also cited the law but said there are several reasons lawyers will be reluctant to state an amount in personal injury and wrongful death cases.
“As the plaintiff’s bar encountered completion of these forms in January of this year, questions arose over whether the information contained on the revised Civil Cover Sheet can be used in a manner that could be adverse to the plaintiff’s interests in a variety of ways, including remittitur hearings if a sizeable award is made that exceeds the amounts cited within the form, in potential subsequent bad faith proceedings, in a legal malpractice action against a plaintiff’s law firm in the event a recovery is made much lower than the amount inserted in the form as the value of the case, etc., etc.,” Edwards wrote.
He also noted, “[T]here is the potential for the data being sought by the court to be skewed or impaired because the attorneys will attempt to meet their obligation to protect their clients’ interests and to comply with the limitations of Section 768.042, Florida Statutes. The issues. .. have the potential to skew data provided to the court and the Legislature.”
Another problem, according to Edwards and Hogan, is civil procedure rule 1.100(d) requires the clerk receiving an incomplete filing, such as lacking an amount on the case, to file the case but abate any further action until the error is corrected.
Hogan told the portal authority that if the case amount is not given in the electronic filing process, then the portal rejects the filing, it never reaches the clerk, and the file is not opened.
“Effectively, the cover sheet is the gate and if you don’t open the gate, you can’t file the complaint,” Hogan said. “The process of the portal seems to be contrary to the intent of Rule 1.100(d).”
Hogan and Edwards suggested possible solutions, including that the amount given on the cover sheet could not be used in any litigation or is for clerical use only.
Putnam County Clerk of Court Tim Smith, chair of the e-filing authority, asked Hogan to put his concerns in an email and said that would be shared with authority members and staff.
The comments from Morgan and Morgan, the Florida Justice Association, Edwards and Hogan are pending at the Supreme Court.
Aside from those, the Bar’s Code and Rules of Evidence Committee on January 28 asked for an extension until February 14 to file comments on requiring civil cases to be valued on Form 1.997, but provided no further specifics.
The Civil Procedure Rules Committee filed a comment the same day expressing a concern when liens are foreclosed. Although foreclosures are considered non-monetary “Other Civil” type cases in determining court jurisdiction, the committee questioned whether such cases could be adequately tracked in county courts.
The Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee had earlier filed a motion for rehearing on the amendment section implementing the part of the new statute that mandates that county court appeals in cases between $15,000 and $30,000 in value go to district courts of appeal, rather than circuit courts.
The court converted that request into an out-of-cycle rules case.
The Housing Umbrella Group, a coalition of lawyers representing tenants in eviction cases, also asked the court to amend the form to specify whether evictions were residential or commercial.
