Court Opinion

ID: 9548702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:07:15.924184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:19:18.406393
License: Public Domain

WALTERS, Justice (specially concurring). I agree with the majority’s disposition of the tolling issue, and I concur specially to express my belief that we should do more than invite reexamination of Jones v. New Mexico State Highway Department, 92 N.M. 671, 593 P.2d 1074 (1979), and, indeed, should overrule it. The predominant and better view is that a trial court may exercise its equitable power to transfer venue when the interests of justice will be served in so doing. For instance, Oklahoma recently reiterated its reliance on the common law, undisturbed by its constitution and statutes, permitting district courts to transfer a case from a county where venue is improper to one with proper venue “in the interest of efficient administration of justice.” Pribram v. Fouts, 736 P.2d 513, 515 (Okla.1987). Colorado, also, has continued its adherence to the rule that (even absent statutory authority) “a proper application for a change of venue from an improper county * * * leaves the trial court with no alternative but to grant such application.” In Ko-Am Enterprises v. Davis, 657 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1983), that court declared that, in the context of dismissal or transfer on grounds of improper venue, “the policies of judicial economy and protecting the litigants’ interests, which underlie the preference for disposing of cases on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities, are best served * * * by transferring the action to the judicial district of proper venue rather than by dismissing the action.” We should adopt the reasoning expressed at 1 J. Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 0.146[5] at 1665-66 (2d ed. 1988): As a general proposition, where dismissal would terminate an action because of a limitation statute, the interests of justice should normally require a transfer of the action to the proper district. Dismissal of an action for improper venue is a severe penalty. Transfer, on the other hand, enables the action to go forward in some proper venue; it is in line with the practice of most state courts; and * * * it is a part of the larger problem of getting judicial business transacted conveniently and expeditiously * * *. Dismissal therefore should be reserved for that action where its institution in an improper forum smacks of harassment or evidences some other element of bad faith on the plaintiffs part. New Mexico should join “most state courts” and acknowledge that the rigidity of Jones serves no useful or legitimate jurisprudential purpose, whereas transfer of a misfiled case, in the absence of bad faith, would entail only the slightest effort on the part of all concerned. I would have preferred that this court go further in this matter, i.e., that we overrule Jones and officially recognize the trial court’s inherent authority, when justice requires, to transfer cases from an improper to a proper venue. SCARBOROUGH, C.J., concurs.