U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF COURT FILING FEES

NCJ Number
47398
Journal
State Court Journal Volume: 2 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1978) Pages: 8-13 38-49
Author(s)
E K STOTT; R N ROSS
Date Published
1978
Length
18 pages
Annotation
THE HISTORY AND RATIONALE OF COURT FILING (DOCKET) FEES ARE EXAMINED, AND RESULTS OF A SURVEY OF STATE FILING FEE SYSTEMS ARE PRESENTED. MAJOR ISSUES TO BE CONSIDERED IN DEVELOPING OR ALTERING FEE POLICIES ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
FILING FEES ORIGINATED IN THE ENGLISH TRADITION OF COMPENSATING COURT OFFICIALS FROM FEES PAID BY LITIGANTS. HOWEVER, SINCE STATES STARTED PAYING THE SALARIES OF COURT PERSONNEL, TWO OTHER JUSTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN USED: FILING FEES DETER FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION; AND THEY REPRESENT A PROPER CHARGE FOR USE OF THE CIVIL COURTS FOR PRIVATE BENEFIT. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THESE TWO RATIONALES ARE THAT FEES DO NOT IN FACT DETER LITIGATION BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE OVERALL COST OF LITIGATION, AND THAT SUCH FEES ARE INAPPROPRIATE TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE NATURE OF THE COURTS. MOREOVER, MUCH CIVIL LITIGATION IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AS WELL AS FOR PRIVATE BENEFIT. SYSTEMS OF CIVIL FILING FEES VARY GREATLY AMONG THE STATES. CHARGES MAY BE AS LOW AS $1 OR AS HIGH AS $70. IN STATES WITH LOWER FILING FEES, ADDITIONAL CHARGES OFTEN RAISE THE COST OF FILING SIGNIFICANTLY. STATES WITH HIGHER FEES HAVE A FLAT-FEE SYSTEM, AND THE CHARGE COVERS MOST OF THE OTHER MINOR FEES INVOLVED IN LITIGATION. SOME STATES HAVE ESTABLISHED GRADUATED FEE SCHEDULES IN WHICH FILING FEES VARY FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF CIVIL ACTIONS OR ACCORDING TO THE MONETARY AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY. ALTHOUGH GRADUATED FEE SYSTEMS MAY ALLOW FOR INCREASED COURT REVENUES AND MAY BE ESTABLISHED ON A SYSTEMATIC AND RATIONAL BASIS, THEY CAN CREATE AN IMAGE OF THE COURT AS A REVENUE PRODUCER. THIS COULD ACT TO THE COURTS' DETRIMENT IN STATE BUDGETARY PROCESSES. WHATEVER THE FEE OR SYSTEM, THE INDIGENT MUST NOT BE DENIED ACCESS TO THE COURTS BECAUSE OF PROHIBITIVE FILING FEES IN AREAS WHERE THE COURTS ARE THE SOLE REMEDY AVAILABLE. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE STATES PROVIDE FOR A FEE WAIVER FOR INDIGENTS. EARMARKING OF FEE REVENUES FOR PENSION PLANS, LIBRARIES, OR OTHER SUCH PURPOSES IS PREVALENT AMONG THE STATES. HOWEVER, THIS PRACTICE CIRCUMVENTS REGULAR EXPENDITURES REVIEWS, COMPLICATES ADMINISTRATION, MAY ENGENDER THE IMPRESSION OF THE COURTS AS REVENUE PRODUCERS, AND RAISES LEGAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF COURTS AND THEIR RIGHT TO TAX LITIGANTS. THERE ARE MORE LOGICAL AND RATIONAL METHODS FOR COMPUTING FILING FEES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY LEGISLATURES DEALING WITH FEE SYSTEMS. FILING FEES COULD BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SERVICE PROVISION NEEDS, ALTHOUGH THIS COULD LEAD TO ABUSES. FEES COULD BE SET BY AVERAGING THE MOST FREQUENTLY OCCURING FEES AND THEN ESTABLISHING A BASE FEE. FEES COULD ALSO REPRESENT THE ACTUAL MINIMUM COST OF COMMENCING LITIGATION OR COULD BE TIED TO THE AMOUNTS CLAIMED OR RECOVERED. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (JAP)