(a) There shall be a consolidated civil filing fee, known as a docket fee, collected from a plaintiff at the time a complaint is filed in circuit court or in district court.
(b) The docket fee may be waived initially and taxed as costs at the conclusion of the case if the court finds that payment of the fee will constitute a substantial hardship pursuant to the income guidelines provided in paragraphs a. and b. of subdivision (4) of Section 15-12-1. A verified statement of substantial hardship, signed by the party claiming hardship, shall be filed with the clerk of court. The accompanying pleading shall be considered filed on the date that the verified statement of substantial hardship is filed with the court. If, within 90 days of the filing, the court makes a written finding that the party claiming hardship has the resources to pay the docket fee without substantial hardship, the party shall have 30 days from the date of the written finding of the court to submit payment of the docket fee or the case shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Until such time as the plaintiff pays the docket fee, the court shall stay the proceedings and the summons or other process for service shall not issue.
(c) If, within 90 days of the filing, the court does not make a written finding that the party claiming hardship has the resources to pay the fee without substantial hardship, the hardship shall be deemed granted.
(d) If a hardship is granted pursuant to subsection (c), the party claiming the hardship shall file written notice with the clerk’s office that 90 days has passed since the time of filing the affidavit of substantial hardship. Failure of the party claiming the hardship to file the notice under this subsection shall have no effect upon the granting of the affidavit of substantial hardship or the date the accompanying pleading shall be considered filed.
(e) Pursuant to the notice requirement under subsection (d), the clerk of the court shall provide a form notice to the party filing an affidavit of substantial hardship and accompanying pleading. The notice shall be in substantially the following form:
“I, (insert name of affiant), declare that on (insert date the affidavit of substantial hardship and accompanying pleading were filed), I filed an affidavit of substantial hardship and (insert name of accompanying pleading). As of (insert 90-day expiration date), the court has not made a written finding that I have the resources to pay the fee without substantial hardship and I hereby notify the clerk of the court that my affidavit of substantial hardship is deemed granted by law.
“________________________ (Signature of Affiant)”
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), if the clerk of the court receives verbal or written notice from any party, the court, or other means, that a hardship has been granted pursuant to subsection (c), the clerk shall enter the notice and docket the pleading.
(Acts 1975, No. 1205, p. 2384, §16-110; Act 2019-373, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
55
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case:
Hicks v. Hicks, 130 So. 3d 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
Hicks v. Hicks, 130 So. 3d 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
· cites it 19× “[[Image here]] “The trial court, in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ claims asserted after the entry of its default judgment in April 2005, acted outside its jurisdiction because the parties did not pay the docketing fees required under Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-70 et…”
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
· cites it 10× “In support of its argument that the trial court did not obtain jurisdiction over Rudolph’s counterclaims until Rudolph paid the requisite filing fee, Jabez relies on cases construing § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975. Section 12-19-70(a) provides: “There shall be a consolidated civil…”
Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC, 191 So. 3d 787 (Ala. 2015).
· cites it 13× “See § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975. 2 It is undisputed that, at the time it was filed, the hardship statement had not been approved by the trial court as required by § 12 — 19— 70(b).”
McCartha v. State, 78 So. 3d 1014 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
· cites it 14× “However, reading § 12-19-70(b), Ala.Code 1975, in conjunction with Rule 32.”
Clemons v. State, 55 So. 3d 314 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “In addressing the purpose and intent behind the adoption of § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975, the Alabama Supreme Court explained: “The use of the term ‘shall’ in this provision makes the payment of the filing fee mandatory.”
Smith v. State, 918 So. 2d 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “`[A]bsent the payment of a filing fee [required by § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975,] or the granting of a request to proceed in forma pauperis the trial court fails to obtain subject matter jurisdiction to consider a postconviction petition.”
State v. Holley, 883 So. 2d 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
· cites it 5× “Holley also argues that we should grant this mandamus petition because, he argues, Judge McCooey had no jurisdiction to issue the order. Initially, we note that this case is correctly before this Court by way of a mandamus petition.”
Madden v. State, 885 So. 2d 841 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004).
· cites it 3× “"[A]bsent the payment of a filing fee [required by § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975,] or the granting of a request to proceed in forma pauperis the trial court fails to obtain subject matter jurisdiction to consider a postconviction petition.”
James Odom v. Renee Odom., 89 So. 3d 121 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× ““The trial court, in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ claims asserted after the entry of its default judgment in April 2005, acted outside its jurisdiction because the parties did not pay the docketing fees required under Ala.”
Burgett v. Porter, 180 So. 3d 20 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).
· cites it 5× “2d at 559 (“[T]he parties did not pay the docketing fees required under Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-70 et seq., for [the circuit] court to acquire subject-matter jurisdiction.”
Ex parte CVS Pharmacy, L.L.C., 209 So. 3d 1111 (Ala. 2016).
· cites it 9× “See § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975. On September 23, 2015, the circuit court entered an order purporting to declare Scott indigent and to waive the filing fee.”
State v. Dozier, 827 So. 2d 774 (Ala. 2002).
· cites it 4× “1 Dozier sought leave to waive the docket fee required by § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975, 2 and requested that he be allowed to proceed on his petition in forma pauperis.”
— Ala. Code § 12-19-70(a) — 9 cases
Espinoza v. Rudolph, 46 So. 3d 403 (Ala. 2010).
“In support of its argument that the trial court did not obtain jurisdiction over Rudolph’s counterclaims until Rudolph paid the requisite filing fee, Jabez relies on cases construing § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975. Section 12-19-70(a) provides: “There shall be a consolidated civil…”
Hicks v. Hicks, 130 So. 3d 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
“[[Image here]] “The trial court, in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ claims asserted after the entry of its default judgment in April 2005, acted outside its jurisdiction because the parties did not pay the docketing fees required under Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-70 et…”
Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC, 191 So. 3d 787 (Ala. 2015).
“See § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975. 2 It is undisputed that, at the time it was filed, the hardship statement had not been approved by the trial court as required by § 12 — 19— 70(b).”
State v. Holley, 883 So. 2d 266 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003).
“Holley also argues that we should grant this mandamus petition because, he argues, Judge McCooey had no jurisdiction to issue the order. Initially, we note that this case is correctly before this Court by way of a mandamus petition.”
— Ala. Code § 12-19-70(b) — 18 cases
McCartha v. State, 78 So. 3d 1014 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
“However, reading § 12-19-70(b), Ala.Code 1975, in conjunction with Rule 32.”
Arrington v. Courtyard Citiflats, LLC, 191 So. 3d 787 (Ala. 2015).
“See § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975. 2 It is undisputed that, at the time it was filed, the hardship statement had not been approved by the trial court as required by § 12 — 19— 70(b).”
Smith v. State, 918 So. 2d 141 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005).
“`[A]bsent the payment of a filing fee [required by § 12-19-70, Ala.Code 1975,] or the granting of a request to proceed in forma pauperis the trial court fails to obtain subject matter jurisdiction to consider a postconviction petition.”
Hicks v. Hicks, 130 So. 3d 184 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012).
“[[Image here]] “The trial court, in exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ claims asserted after the entry of its default judgment in April 2005, acted outside its jurisdiction because the parties did not pay the docketing fees required under Ala.Code 1975, § 12-19-70 et…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.