Rhode Island House Bill H7643

Rhode Island 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/11/26
• Refer: 2/11/26
• Report Pass: 4/9/26
• Engrossed: 4/28/26
• Refer: 5/1/26

Caption

Simplifies the assessment of filing fees required to appeal from small claims and consumer matters adjudicated by the district court.

Impact

Another notable change introduced by H7643 is the increase in the jurisdictional limit for compulsory counterclaims from $2,500 to $5,000. This adjustment aligns the maximum amount for counterclaims with the general jurisdictional threshold for small claims actions. These reforms are intended to clarify procedures for the courts and improve access to justice for individuals pursuing small claims. By emphasizing mediation and simplifying the fee structure, advocates argue that the bill will promote the resolution of disputes without the need for extensive litigation.

Summary

House Bill H7643 aims to streamline the judicial process for small claims and consumer matters by modifying the existing assessment of filing fees and rules related to appeals. The bill proposes to increase the entry fee required for plaintiffs to file a small claims action from $55.00 to $75.00. This fee includes a civil case processing fee and a technology surcharge. A portion of this fee is allocated to a newly established 'small claims mediation restricted-receipt account,' which will fund mediation services. The bill will also impose a requirement for plaintiffs and defendants to file waivers of the right to appeal as part of their claims and counterclaims, respectively.

Contention

While the bill purports to facilitate easier access to justice and reduce the backlog in small claims cases, there may be potential points of contention. Critics argue that increasing filing fees could disproportionately affect low-income individuals, making it more challenging for them to seek legal redress. Additionally, concerns may arise regarding the impact of mandatory waivers of the right to appeal on defendants, especially if they feel a decision has been unjust. Such aspects could lead to debates about whether the bill adequately balances access to justice with the need for a fair and comprehensive legal process.