Title: Conner v. Rose

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  All the Justices 
 
ANNIE CONNER 
 
OPINION BY JUSTICE LEROY R. HASSELL, SR. 
v.   Record No. 951836                 June 7, 1996 
 
JAMES M. ROSE 
 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY 
 
James E. Kulp, Judge 
 
 
Code § 8.01-380(A) contains a limitation which provides that 
"[a]fter a nonsuit no new proceeding on the same cause of action 
or against the same party shall be had in any court other than 
that in which the nonsuit was taken, unless that court is without 
jurisdiction."  In this appeal, we consider whether Code § 8.01-
380(A) permits a plaintiff to nonsuit an action in a general 
district court and to refile that action in a circuit court, 
claiming damages in excess of the jurisdiction of the general 
district court. 
 
In 1994, Annie Conner filed an action against James M. Rose 
in the Richmond City General District Court.  Conner alleged in 
her warrant in debt that she had purchased a home from Rose and 
that he breached certain warranties that he had made to her.  
Conner sought damages in the amount of $4,000. 
 
On Rose's motion, the action was transferred to the Henrico 
County General District Court.  Subsequently, Conner nonsuited her 
action in that court and refiled her action in the Circuit Court 
of Henrico County.  Her motion for judgment included causes of 
action for breach of warranty and fraud in connection with the 
purchase of the house.  She sought compensatory and punitive 
damages totaling $11,000. 
 
Relying upon Code § 8.01-380(A), Rose requested that the 
circuit court transfer Conner's action to the general district 
court.  Rose argued, and the trial court held, that Code § 8.01-
380(A) requires that Conner refile her action in the general 
district court because her nonsuit was taken in that court.  We 
awarded Conner an appeal. 
 
Conner asserts that Code § 8.01-380(A) permits her to file 
her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum clause in 
her motion for judgment exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the 
general district court and, therefore, the general district court 
lacks jurisdiction over her action.  We agree. 
 
The applicable statutory language quoted in Code § 8.01-
380(A) is clear and unambiguous and, therefore, we apply its plain 
meaning.  Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc., 240 Va. 292, 
295, 396 S.E.2d 672, 674 (1990).  This language permits Conner to 
refile her action in the circuit court because the ad damnum 
clause in her motion for judgment exceeds the general district 
court's jurisdictional limit of $10,000, see Code § 16.1-77.  
Therefore, the general district court is without jurisdiction to 
adjudicate her claims. 
 
Accordingly, we will reverse the judgment of the trial court 
and remand this case for further proceedings. 
 
Reversed and remanded.