Opinion
2023-CA-0993-MR
10-04-2024
MICHAEL CLEVENGER APPELLANT v. MARC VONDERHEIDE APPELLEE
Briefs for Appellant: M. Kevin Lett Ashland, Kentucky Brief for Appellee: R. Stephen McGinnis Greenup, Kentucky
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from Boyd Circuit Court Honorable John F. Vincent, Judge Action No. 22-CI-00531
Briefs for Appellant: M. Kevin Lett Ashland, Kentucky
Brief for Appellee: R. Stephen McGinnis Greenup, Kentucky
Before: Thompson, Chief Judge; Combs and Lambert, Judges
OPINION
LAMBERT, JUDGE
Michael Clevenger appeals the Boyd Circuit Court's June 29, 2023, judgment awarding Marc Vonderheide damages for breach of contract, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Having reviewed the briefs, record, and law, we vacate the judgment and remand the matter for proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In 2020, Louis and Claudia Vonderheide, Marc's parents, purchased four lots of unimproved land from Michael by deed. The Vonderheides allege that the purchase included a covenant that the properties were equipped with a functioning water tap as well as other utilities, but those services were either inoperable or not in place. Marc asserts that Michael then orally contracted with him to fix the properties' waterlines, but Michael refused to pay him for the resulting work. On August 1, 2022, based upon allegations that Michael was in breach of his covenant to Louis and Claudia and in breach of his oral contract with Marc, the Vonderheides filed a complaint seeking damages. The complaint did not state a sum for the alleged damages nor did it contain an allegation that the damages were in excess of the minimum amount necessary to establish jurisdiction in the court. See Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 8.01(2).
Louis and Claudia are not parties to the appeal, but we reference them in this Opinion because their claims are relevant to the parties' arguments.
In January 2023, counsel for the Vonderheides filed a motion to set a trial date for Marc's breach of oral contract claim, stating that the parties "seem[ed] to [have] resolve[d]" all other issues. And in June, Marc alone responded to Michael's subsequent motion to compel the Vonderheides to comply with discovery requests, and he attached his interrogatory responses which fixed his claimed damages at $4,500.00, excepting costs and fees. The case then came before the court for a bench trial on June 26, 2023. At the outset, Michael moved to dismiss Louis and Claudia's claims, and, noting that those claims were resolved, the court granted the motion. The trial proceeded on Marc's breach of contract claim, and ultimately, on June 29, 2023, the court entered a judgment in his favor for $4,500.00.
Michael then filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, pursuant to CR 59.05, arguing that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the amount in controversy did not exceed the statutory threshold of $5,000.00 reserved exclusively to district court. The court denied the motion, stating that the defense was not raised "prior to trial or at the trial[, and t]he other Plaintiffs were dismissed at [the] beginning of trial." Michael subsequently sought reconsideration of this order, asserting that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. The court again denied the motion and, citing Singleton v. Madison, 4 Ky. 342 (1809), held that "[t]he rendering of a verdict for damages in an amount less than the jurisdictional limit does not divest a court of jurisdiction properly held prior to trial." This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law that we review de novo. Commonwealth v. B.H., 548 S.W.3d 238, 242 (Ky. 2018).
ANALYSIS
Michael first argues that, contrary to the circuit court's statement of the law, subject matter jurisdiction is not subject to waiver, and we agree. The law is well-established that "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived or conferred by agreement, and a party may challenge a court's lack of subject matter jurisdiction [at] any time[.]" Id. at 245 (see also Duncan v. O'Nan, 451 S.W.2d 626 (Ky. 1970)). We shall therefore consider whether the Vonderheides invoked the subject matter jurisdiction of the circuit court in this action based upon the amount in controversy.
Subject matter jurisdiction refers to a "court's power to hear and rule on a particular type of controversy." Nordike v. Nordike, 231 S.W.3d 733, 737 (Ky. 2007). The courts of the Commonwealth are assigned specific types of cases via constitutional provisions and statutes. Daugherty v. Telek, 366 S.W.3d 463, 466 (Ky. 2012). The circuit court "is a court of general jurisdiction, [and] it has original jurisdiction of all justiciable causes not exclusively vested in some other court." Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 23A.010(1). The district court, however, "shall have exclusive jurisdiction in[ c]ivil cases in which the amount in controversy does not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000), exclusive of interest and costs[.]" KRS 24A.120.
"[M]atters affecting title to real estate and matters of equity" are exceptions to this general rule of jurisdiction. KRS 24A.120.
"To determine subject matter jurisdiction, the pleadings should be examined and taken at face value. The court has subject matter jurisdiction when the 'kind of case' identified in the pleadings is one which the court has been empowered, by statute or constitutional provision, to adjudicate." Daugherty, 366 S.W.3d at 467 (citing Gordon v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 887 S.W.2d 360, 362 (Ky. 1994)). Once acquired, challenges to a court's subsequent rulings and judgments are questions incident to the exercise of its jurisdiction rather than to the existence of jurisdiction. Id. (quoting Hisle v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 258 S.W.3d 422, 429-30 (Ky. App. 2008)). Thus, while the circuit court's assertion that a judgment below the amount in controversy threshold does not invalidate a court's subject matter jurisdiction is consistent with Kentucky law, it does not resolve the question of whether such jurisdiction in fact existed.
In their briefs, the parties primarily focus on whether the Vonderheides' claims could be aggregated to reach the required jurisdictional amount and what, if any, impact the dismissal of Louis and Claudia's claims prior to trial had on the court's jurisdiction. However, there is a threshold issue that must be resolved first, namely how we are to proceed when, as here, the complaint is silent as to the amount in controversy, a fact critical to whether jurisdiction rests with the district or circuit court.
Marc argues that we may infer a value to the damage claims raised in the complaint, citing Jackson v. Beattyville Water Department, 278 S.W.3d 633 (Ky. App. 2009), in support. At issue therein was the circuit court's remand of a civil suit to the district court upon a finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case that her claimed monetary damages exceeded the jurisdictional amount, which at that time was $4,000.00. Id. This Court reversed, concluding that it was enough that the plaintiff had alleged sufficient damages in both her complaint ($7,500.00), and with more specificity, in her supplemental interrogatories ($4,050.00). Id. at 636-37.
While we agree that Jackson holds that the Vonderheides were not required to put forward evidence in their complaint to prove the value of their damage claims, we disagree with Marc that it authorizes this Court to do anything other than to accept at face value what is pled. Here, again, the Vonderheides' complaint did not allege with any specificity the value of the damages sought or contain a CR 8.01 statement that the damages exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. Without this information it cannot be determined that any of the claims, aggregated or not, properly invoked the circuit court's jurisdiction. Even accepting that we may look to Marc's interrogatory responses, the only stated claim for damages was for $4,500.00, which does not meet the jurisdictional threshold.Accordingly, we conclude that the circuit court did not have subject matter jurisdiction, and, in consequence, the court's June 29, 2023, judgment is void. See Cabinet for Health & Family Servs. ex rel. Child Support Enforcement v. B.N.T., 651 S.W.3d 745, 750-51 (Ky. 2022).
While not argued by the parties, we are aware that Marc's interrogatory responses also claimed attorney fees as damages. This does not change our analysis for two reasons: one, the amount was unspecified, and two, attorney fees are generally not recoverable as costs or as an item of damages without a specific contractual provision or a fee-shifting statute and neither is alleged herein. See AIK Selective Self-Insurance Fund v. Minton, 192 S.W.3d 415, 420 (Ky. 2006); Dulworth & Burress Tobacco Warehouse Co. v. Burress, 369 S.W.2d 129 (Ky. 1963); Holsclaw v. Stephens, 507 S.W.2d 462 (Ky. 1973), disapproved on other grounds by Jacobs v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov't, 560 S.W.2d 10 (Ky. 1977); and Craig v. Keene, 32 S.W.3d 90 (Ky. App. 2000).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Boyd Circuit Court is vacated, and this matter is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.
ALL CONCUR.