Part One of Two A common question is â??Which Court can I sue them inâ?, or its corollary, â??Which Court must they sue me in?â?. This sounds like a simple question. Unfortunately, as in most things where lawyers are involved, the answer is neither clear nor simple. In this Essay I am addressing State Court jurisdiction only, since Federal Court jurisdiction is obvious - under FDCPA/FDCA "any Federal District Court" has jurisdiction. There are several concepts that must be understood before we can continue this discussion. The first is the concept of â??jurisdictionâ?. Quoting from the â??â??Lectric law Library Legal lexiconâ?: When a court has the authority to decide a case, it is said to have jurisdiction over it. In all states, certain types of courts (often called, depending on the state, superior, circuit, county, district or family courts) are given specific and exclusive jurisdiction to handle family law cases. A family law court cannot, however, hear bankruptcies or criminal cases. A geographic or subject area over which a court has authority. A magistrate court has jurisdiction over a town or city while the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire country; A court's authority to rule on the questions of law at issue in a dispute, typically determined by geographic location and/or type of case. From this excerpt we see the following: 1. Jurisdiction is assigned by law 2. Any agreed jurisdiction between the parties must be consistent with law. 3. Jurisdiction is divided both Geographically and by Subject Matter of the case. 4. Deviation from the rules of jurisdiction render any decision by the â??wrongâ? court null and void. That said, we now enter the realm of â??Personal Jurisdictionâ?. Once again, from the â??Lectric Law Lexicon: For a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the defendant must have been personally served (or have accepted service of the court papers) and the defendant must have at least some contacts with the state in which the court is located. No set number qualifies as the minimum; each situation must be analyzed case by case. If the defendant lives out of state, the court must look at the defendant's contacts with the state. Going into a state regularly to conduct business is usually sufficient for the court to obtain jurisdiction; sending child support payments to a state, without actually visiting the state, however, is not. Example: Denise and Walter spent their entire married life in Colorado. Denise moved to New Mexico, established residency and sued for divorce. If Walter has virtually no contacts with New Mexico, the New Mexico court has no personal jurisdiction over him. As a practical matter, this means the court may award Denise a divorce, but cannot make any decisions affecting the division of property, an award of alimony or child support, or a determination of custody and visitation because these matters affect Walter's rights as an individual. If, however, Walter and Denise spent five weeks every summer during their marriage in New Mexico, the court may rule that Walter's contacts with New Mexico are sufficient for there to be personal jurisdiction in New Mexico. This can be a complicated and convoluted area of law with many pitfalls and obstacles should opposing parties decide to contest personal jurisdiction. I have bolded the most significant part. Note that it tends to lean towards the defendantâ??s district of residence... BUT there are several significant exceptions to that rule. One is the wording of a stateâ??s â??Long Armâ? Statute - which confers into that stateâ??s Courts jurisdiction over a defendant located outside that state. Generally, when you come into a state, even ephemerally, you accept that stateâ??s personal jurisdiction over you for all acts that area s a result of your entry. Translated into our context, the means when a CA calls you or writes you a letter it has â??enteredâ? your state and any consequences of the CAâ??s entering your state would be heard in you stateâ??s courts. Arizona has a typical â??Long Armâ? Statute: Another wrinkle in the question of Jurisdiction is found in one of the more common laws that we deal with - FDCPA. That law introduces the possibility that the situs of the signing of the underlying contract. FDCPA: In addition, most Federally Guaranteed Student loan contracts have a provision agreeing that any suits under that contract will be heard in a specific jurisdiction - in New York it is Albany County and in Arizona it is Maricopa County. This is done for the convenience of the lender, in this case the US Department of Education, and their offices are usually located in the State Capital. To summarize so far - If you are the Plaintiff, your stateâ??s Long Arm Statute will allow you to sue in your State of residence due to the â??entryâ? of the defendant to your state to commit the violation. If you are the defendant, it is not so clear. Generally, you must be sued in your state of residence (notice the Plaintiff has no Long Arm Statute to rely on because your actions that led to the suit were committed (or more accurately not committed) in your state. You didnâ??t go to Virginia to NOT mail a payment to Cap1. You didnâ??t mail it FROM Arizona, your resident state. There are three exceptions to this rule - (a) when you agreed in the original contract to be sued in a certain Jurisdiction, (b) you may be sued in the jurisdiction in which the debt originated, and (c) in matters involving Real Estate you can be sued in the jurisdiction in which the Real Estate is located.
