1975, August, Pg. 1519. The Small Claims Court-Colorado's Turn?.

• Author: by Barry J. Goldstein

4 Colo.Law. 1519

Colorado Lawyer

1975.

1975, August, Pg. 1519.

The Small Claims Court-Colorado's Turn?

1519Vol. 4, No. 8, Pg. 1519The Small Claims Court-Colorado's Turn?by Barry J. GoldsteinOften a client or a potential client comes to an attorney and asks for representation on a claim which seems to have great merit but which, because of the amount in controversy, does not warrant the person incurring legal fees which might exceed his ultimate recovery. Similarly, persons who have been sued often come to an attorney with a valid defense to a lawsuit with the same result: representation would not be economically feasible. Many people feel that although they have suffered damage in some way or another, they cannot obtain judicial relief because the cost and the complexities of the system will prevent such relief. For these reasons, and others, persuasive arguments are being made across the country for establishment of small claims courts or "People's Courts."

Colorado is now one of the few remaining states which does not have some form of small claims court. Although Colorado does have a county court system with a present jurisdictional limit of up to $500 (which is to be increased to $1,000 on October 1, 1975), it is still a court of complex rules of procedure, formal rules of evidence, time delays and the need for attorneys. A recent publication from the National Center for State Courts stated, "according to a New York Times survey in Denver, Colorado, only 5% of the 15,000 cases filed annually in the civil courts handling small claims were filed by individuals with 70% filed by collection agencies and 25% by landlords." From this it is evident that the people with small claims, especially those people unable to afford an attorney, are presently not making use of our judicial system even through the county courts. There exist numerous situations where people feel that a claim should be pursued or defended, but economics outweigh personal belief to pursue what seems to be right.

Legislation ProposedVarious committees of the Colorado and Denver Bar Associations have been examining the need for a small claims court in Colorado with a view to proposing legislation for the establishment of a small claims court which would benefit all people, irrespective of their economic position.

In the 1975 legislature, Senator Ray Kogovsek of Pueblo introduced Senate Bill 218 which provided for a small claims court. This bill passed favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee to the floor of the Senate. However, before any further action was taken on the bill, Senator

1520Kogovsek agreed to a postponement of this bill until the bar associations had completed their studies and developed a proposed bill to be introduced during the 1976 legislature. It is hoped and believed that this type of legislation, which would be of a great benefit to the entire community, will be placed on the Governor's call next year.

The purpose of this article is to inform Colorado attorneys of the action that has been taken and also to seek the support of the bar associations with respect to creation of a small claims court. Appended to this article is one of several proposed bills establishing a small claims court, along with proposed Rules of Court to be established by the Colorado Supreme Court. The following is a general summary of the two major provisions of this bill and the reasons for such procedures.

1. The court will be an inexpensive, speedy and informal forum with substantive rules of law applying only and ordinary rules of evidence, procedure and pleadings not applicable. This is one of the most important features of the bill as it would enable the lay person to obtain a fair, inexpensive, expedient solution to a problem.

2. Attorneys would not be allowed to represent a party in interest in such court. This provision would, of course, have great bearing on the entire Bar Association. It is felt by the bar committees, that to have a real "People's Court" with limited jurisdiction for personal claims, it is important to preclude attorneys (except pro se) from participating in the court in order to achieve expediency and fairness to all parties. This has been the experience in many other states which have a small claims court. In addition, assignees or other persons who are not a "real party to the transaction, except for the personal representative of a decedent," would not be allowed to participate as a party plaintiff in this court. It must be remembered that the county court, with increased jurisdictional limits, would be available to assignees as well as for attorney representation.

The remaining provisions of the bill are mostly self-explanatory and are set forth in the appendix hereto. However, there has also been proposed an alternative concept whereby both parties must agree that the decision of the small claims court will be final with no right of appeal and if both parties do not so agree, the case would be transferred to the county court and tried under small claims court rules.

This article has been written with this proposed bill and proposed rules of court attached in order that all attorneys in the state may have an opportunity to comment on...