The court should inquire into the underlying purpose of a motion for transfer to the civil docket. The motion should be scrutinized carefully to ensure that its allowance would not frustrate the overall purpose of the small claims procedure.
Commentary
Motions for transfer of a small claim to the regular civil docket are permissible under G.L. c. 218, s. 24 and Uniform Small Claims Rule 4. Since transfer to the civil docket eliminates the simplified procedures available under small claims practice, such motions should be carefully scrutinized. The court should require the party making the motion to demonstrate the need for the transfer. The court should be alert for any indication that the motion is interposed for delay or for strategic advantage, particularly where the opposing party is unrepresented by counsel. Adequate reasons for transfer would include:
- the presence of a counterclaim arising from the same incident in excess of the small claims limits;
- other pending civil cases with the same or related parties;
- an artificial division of the claim to bring it within the small claims limits;
- the requirement of a compulsory counterclaim in a related case on the civil docket; or
- numerous witnesses or extensive discovery requirements.
- the preservation of appellate rights when there are issues of law. See Standard 8:05; Trust Insurance Company v. Bruce at Park Chiropractic Clinic, 430 Mass. 607, 610 (2000).
There is, however, one set of circumstances where the court has little or no discretion to deny such a motion, i.e. where a defendant moves to transfer on the grounds that his or her right to a jury trial under Article 15 of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and to due process and equal protection under the Constitution of the Commonwealth and the United States Constitution would be impaired by the statutory provision giving prima facie effect to the court's decision on appeal in a jury or bench trial. Daum v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 396 Mass. 1013 (1986); Gozzo v. Anglin, 31 Mass. App. Ct. 936 (1991). In such cases, the motion to transfer must explicitly raise these rights. In addition, the court has discretion to scrutinize such a motion to determine whether the motion is in fact based on grounds other than the constitutional claims. In Lyons v. Kinney Sys., Inc., 27 Mass. App. Ct. 386, 389, 390. (1989), the court determined that a judge properly denied a motion to transfer a small claim to the regular civil docket where the basis of the motion, despite an invocation of Daum, was to obtain discovery.
The court, therefore, if presented with a motion for transfer, should analyze whether the motion before it is truly based upon Daum grounds. If the court so finds, the motion may be denied only if the plaintiff agrees in advance to waive the prima facie effect of a favorable finding by the magistrate in any later retrial before a jury. See Newgent v. Colonial Contractors & Builders, Inc., 348 Mass. 582 (1965) wherein the Supreme Judicial Court suggested such an approach in an analogous context.
If transfer seems appropriate, the court may wish to advise unrepresented parties of the complexity of regular civil actions.
If the court in its discretion orders a transfer from the small claim to the civil docket, the case should be entered on the court’s civil docket pursuant to Rule 4 without payment of an additional entry fee, as if the cause of action had been begun in the first instance under the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant must file an answer within twenty days of the transfer unless the defendant has already answered in the small claims case. The court may, in the order of transfer or thereafter, direct any party to file specific additional or substitute pleadings pursuant to the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure or impose such other terms as may appear just. G.L. c. 218, s. 24; Uniform Small Claims Rule 4, as recently amended.
If a claim for motor vehicle property damage is transferred to the civil docket at the request of the insurer, any judgment against the insurer must incorporate the other party's costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. G.L. c.218, s. 23.