A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 8.01-195.4, 16.1-122.2, and 16.1-122.3 of the Code of Virginia, relating to small claims court; jurisdictional limit.
HB364 would expand the monetary limits for certain civil cases in Virginia’s small claims and general district court system. The bill raises the small claims court jurisdictional limit from $5,000 to $25,000 for a plaintiff, but only if that plaintiff uses the small claims civil warrant no more than two times in the Commonwealth in a calendar year. It also updates related procedures so that small claims actions continue to be filed by warrant, with service, continuances, and pleading rules largely unchanged except where the new higher limit applies.
The bill also amends the rules for claims against the Commonwealth and transportation districts. For those claims, it increases the general district court’s exclusive jurisdiction ceiling to $4,500 and creates concurrent jurisdiction between general district and circuit court for claims over $4,500 up to $50,000, with circuit court retaining exclusive jurisdiction above that amount. It further allows a plaintiff to move to transfer a pending case when the amount of the claim is increased or decreased, without requiring dismissal or nonsuit, and preserves tolling of limitations during the transfer.
HB364 would change several sections of the Code of Virginia governing small claims court and claims against the Commonwealth. It would substantially broaden access to small claims court for higher-dollar disputes, while also imposing a usage cap on plaintiffs who file at the new higher amount. The bill would also alter jurisdictional thresholds for claims against the state and transportation districts, shifting more cases into concurrent jurisdiction and expanding the range of cases that may be heard outside circuit court. Courts, clerks, plaintiffs, and defendants in civil disputes would be directly affected by the new filing, transfer, and jurisdiction rules.
The available legislative history suggests limited recorded debate, but the bill was not advanced and was continued to the next session by voice vote in the House Courts of Justice Committee. That procedural outcome indicates the measure did not generate enough support or readiness for immediate passage, though the absence of recorded votes or transcripts makes it difficult to identify a strong public split. Overall, the bill appears to have been treated as a civil procedure reform proposal rather than a highly partisan measure.
The main points of contention are likely the size of the jurisdictional increase and the policy choice to let plaintiffs use small claims court for disputes up to $25,000, which could change the character of a court designed for simpler, lower-value cases. Another possible concern is the two-times-per-year filing limit, which suggests lawmakers may have been trying to balance expanded access with preventing overuse. The transfer provisions and expanded concurrent jurisdiction for claims against the Commonwealth may also raise administrative and fairness concerns for courts and state defendants, especially regarding forum selection, fee payment, and case management.