Colorado § 13-6-104 - Original civil jurisdiction.

§ 13-6-104. Original civil jurisdiction.

(1) On and after January 1, 2019, the county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in civil actions, suits, and proceedings in which the debt, damage, or value of the personal property claimed does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, including by way of further example, and not limitation, jurisdiction to hear and determine actions in tort and assess damages therein not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. The county court shall also have jurisdiction of counterclaims in all such actions when the counterclaim does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars.

(2) The county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in actions to foreclose liens pursuant to article 20 of title 38 and in cases of forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer, except when such cases involve the boundary or title to real property and except as provided in section 13-40-109. Judgment in the county court for rent, damages on account of unlawful detention, damages for injury to property, and damages incurred under article 20 of title 38 pursuant to this subsection (2) shall not exceed a total of twenty-five thousand dollars, exclusive of costs and attorney fees, nor shall the county court on and after January 1, 2019, have jurisdiction if the monthly rental value of the property exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars.

(3) The county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in petitions for change of name.

(4) Repealed.

(5) The county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court to issue temporary and permanent civil restraining orders as provided in article 14 of this title.

(6) (Deleted by amendment, L. 99, p. 501, § 5, effective July 1, 1999.)

(7) The county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court to hear actions brought pursuant to section 25-8-607, C.R.S.

(8) The county court shall have original jurisdiction in hearings concerning the impoundment of motor vehicles pursuant to section 42-13-106, C.R.S.

(9) (Deleted by amendment, L. 99, p. 501, § 5, effective July 1, 1999.)

Source: L. 64: p. 409, § 4. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-13-4. L. 67: p. 1063, § 2. L. 75: (2) amended, p. 1419, § 8, effective April 24; (1) and (2) amended, p. 561, § 1, effective October 1. L. 78: (5) added, p. 352, § 1, effective April 21. L. 79: (6) added, p. 599, § 13, effective July 1. L. 81: (1) and (2) amended, p. 879, § 1, effective July 1; (7) added, p. 1338, § 2, effective July 1. L. 82: (5) R&RE and (6) amended, p. 301, §§ 2, 3, effective April 23. L. 86: (8) added, p. 924, § 2, effective April 3. L. 87: (2) amended, p. 1576, § 13, effective July 10. L. 90: (1) and (2) amended, p. 848, § 2, effective May 31; (1) and (2) amended, p. 854, § 2, effective July 1. L. 92: (9) added, p. 292, § 2, effective April 23. L. 94: (4) repealed, p. 2031, § 6, effective July 1; (8) amended, p. 2548, § 29, effective January 1, 1995. L. 99: (5), (6), and (9) amended, p. 501, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2001: (1) and (2) amended, p. 1517, § 11, effective September 1. L. 2018: (1) and (2) amended, (SB 18-056), ch. 298, p. 1816, § 1, effective January 1, 2019.

Cross references: (1) For treatment by county court of restraining orders issued in restraint of persons threatening assaults and bodily harm, see C.R.C.P. 365(b); for civil protection orders, see article 14 of this title; for provisions relating to domestic abuse programs, see article 7.5 of title 26.

(2) For the legislative declaration contained in the 1990 act amending subsections (1) and (2), see section 1 of chapter 100, Session Laws of Colorado 1990.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

III. Jurisdictional Amount.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For comment on Ohmie v. Martinez, appearing below, see 38 Dicta 123 (1961). For note, "Rural Poverty and the Law in Southern Colorado", see 47 Den. L.J. 82 (1970).

Annotator's note. Since § 13-6-104 is similar to repealed laws antecedent to CSA, C. 46, § 156, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

The jurisdiction of district and county courts is concurrent with respect to matters which fall within the jurisdiction of both. Ohmie v. Martinez, 141 Colo. 480, 349 P.2d 131 (1960).

County court may enforce a state agency's imposition of a monetary penalty. Gibbs v. Colo. Mined Land Reclamation Bd., 883 P.2d 592 (Colo. App. 1994).

II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

County courts have general subject matter jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the subject matter is the power to deal with the general abstract question, to hear the particular facts in any case relating to this question, and to determine whether or not they are sufficient to invoke the exercise of that power. Camplin v. Jackson, 34 Colo. 447, 83 P. 1017 (1905).

County court has jurisdiction in all civil matters, both in law and in equity, except as expressly limited. Flynn v. Casper, 26 Colo. App. 344, 144 P. 1137 (1914), citing Sievers v. Garfield County Court, 11 Colo. App. 147, 52 P. 634 (1898); Arnett v. Berg, 18 Colo. App. 341, 71 P. 636 (1903).

County court has jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings. Habeas corpus by a parent, demanding the custody of his infant child, is, under this section, within the jurisdiction of the county court. Flynn v. Casper, 26 Colo. App. 344, 144 P. 1137 (1914).

This section does not apply to proceedings under the eminent domain act. Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Poundstone, 74 Colo. 191, 220 P. 234 (1923).

Nor does it apply in proceedings for injunction against city or town ordinance. County courts have no jurisdiction to control, by injunction, proceedings before police magistrates or justices of the peace acting as such in the enforcement of the ordinances of cities and towns. Hart v. Dana, 12 Colo. App. 499, 55 P. 958 (1889).

III. JURISDICTIONAL AMOUNT.

Annotator's note. The jurisdictional amount in repealed laws antecedent to CSA, C. 46, § 156, was $2,000.

The purpose behind regulating the jurisdiction of the county court as to the amount in controversy is to expedite the handling of small claims. This purpose must be considered in the light of the policy that a person cannot be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of a court, acquiesce in the decree thus obtained, and later question the validity of the judgment when it is enforced against him. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is estopped by his acquiescence and conduct from asserting the invalidity of the judgment in the county court. In re Estate of Lee v. Graber, 170 Colo. 419, 462 P.2d 492 (1969).

Jurisdictional allegation is an essential prerequisite. Jurisdictional allegation in the complaint that the relief sought does not exceed the jurisdictional sum is an essential prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court. Myers v. Myers, 110 Colo. 412, 135 P.2d 235 (1943).

This section does not prescribe a form for the jurisdictional averment. There is nothing in this section that indicates an intention to require the jurisdictional averment to be in a prescribed form. The import of the language employed therein is, that it must affirmatively appear from the complaint that the value of the property in controversy, or the amount involved, for which relief is sought, does not exceed the jurisdictional sum. Hughes v. Brewer, 7 Colo. 583, 4 P. 1115 (1884); Bloomer v. Jones, 22 Colo. App. 404, 125 P. 541 (1912).

Complaint may be amended to show jurisdiction. A complaint in a county court which is insufficient by reason of the omission of a jurisdictional averment may be amended so as to give the court jurisdiction. Myers v. Myers, 110 Colo. 412, 135 P.2d 235 (1943).

Amendment may be allowed to include averment. In condemnation proceedings in the county courts under this section the complaint, if lacking the requisite jurisdictional allegations, is not entirely void but amendable, and when a complaint is amended, it stands as though it had originally read as amended. Goodman v. City of Ft. Collins, 164 F. 970 (8th Cir. 1908).

A defect in this respect may be aided by the answer. A complaint in an action in the county court which did not allege that the value of the property involved was less than $2,000, if defective in that respect, was aided by the answer, which alleged it was not worth $1,500. Petri v. Doughty, 75 Colo. 551, 227 P. 388 (1924).

In a bill to quiet title to lands, an averment that "the value of the property involved does not exceed or equal two thousand dollars", suffices to support the jurisdiction of the county court. Green v. Gibson, 53 Colo. 346, 127 P. 239 (1912).

Complaint must indicate value of land. In a complaint, in an action to quiet the title to lands, no money judgment being demanded, an averment that "the amount herein involved and sued for does not equal $2,000", gives no indication of the value of the land, and is not a compliance with this section. A decree given upon such complaint is void, and may be collaterally assailed. Bloomer v. Jones, 22 Colo. App. 404, 125 P. 541 (1912).

On error defendant will not be heard to question the jurisdiction of the court for want of the averment as to the amount in controversy required by this section. To permit the jurisdiction to be thus questioned for the first time in the court of review would deprive plaintiff of the right to amend granted by the code of civil procedure. Nelson v. Chittenden, 53 Colo. 30, 123 P. 656 (1912).

Uncertainties in the record will be resolved in favor of the party successful below; e.g., as to whether an averment essential to the jurisdiction of the court below, appearing by interlineation in the complaint, was therein, when it was originally filed. Dunkle v. French, 51 Colo. 170, 116 P. 1039 (1911).

Determination of jurisdictional amount. The amount fixed as the statutory limitation of the jurisdiction must be taken to mean the amount due the plaintiff, or the value or amount of his claim, or the value of the property sought to be recovered at the time of bringing the action, and in an action for the recovery of money, where the principal sum draws interest, if the amount due at the time of the commencement of the action, including interest, does not exceed the jurisdictional amount, the county court, under the constitution and this section, has jurisdiction, and the accumulation of interest pendente lite will not oust such jurisdiction. Denver Brick Mfg. Co. v. McAllister, 6 Colo. 326 (1882).

Jurisdictional limit applies to the total amount to be paid, and not to each monthly payment of child support. Mathews v. Urban, 645 P.2d 290 (Colo. App. 1982).

For when averments are sufficient, see Hughes v. Brewer, 7 Colo. 583, 4 P. 1115 (1884).

Once a court has jurisdiction over a case because the total sum sought is within the jurisdictional limit, the court does not lose jurisdiction simply because the case is litigated, and attorney fees incurred and awarded exceed the jurisdictional amount. Ferrell v. Glenwood Brokers, Ltd., 848 P.2d 936 (Colo. 1993), overruled in LHM Corp. v. Martinez, 2021 CO 78, 499 P.3d 1050, to the extent Ferrell suggests appealability of a judgment hinges on the fact-specific determination of whether the attorney fees at issue are best classified as costs or damages.