There shall be one form of action to be known as “civil action.”
Rule 2.One form of action.
Last amended October 1, 1995 · Last verified July 6, 2026
In one sentenceRule 2 abolishes the old separate forms of legal and equitable action and declares that Alabama has just one kind of lawsuit, the “civil action,” so a single case can combine claims and remedies that once had to be pursued in different courts or under different procedures.
Full Text of Rule 2
(dc) District court rule. Rule 2 applies in the district courts, subject to the limitations upon equitable jurisdiction as set forth in § 12-12-30, Code of Alabama 1975.
Amendment History
[Amended effective 10-1-95.]
Committee Comments
Committee Comments on 1973 Adoption
This rule follows in substance the usual introductory statements to code practices which provide for a single action and mode of procedure, with abolition of forms of action and procedural distinctions, and with merger of law and equity. See, e.g., N.Y.Laws 1848, ch. 379, § 62.
This rule does not affect the various remedies which have heretofore been available. Instead the merger of law and equity and the abolition of the forms of action supply one uniform procedure by which a litigant may present his claim in an orderly manner to a court empowered to give him whatever relief is appropriate and just; it remains for the court to decide, in accordance with unchanged principles of substantive law, what form of relief meets this test on the particular facts proved. The court is not limited in choosing a remedy by the demand for relief in the complaint, except where the defendant is in default. Rule 54(c).
The one procedural difference among actions which remains under these rules is the right to jury trial. That right is expressly preserved by Rule 38(a), and cases which would have been tried to a jury under the former procedure will still be tried to a jury if there is a timely demand for this mode of trial. In every other respect, actions are to be governed by a single procedure, regardless of whether they would historically have been “legal” or “equitable” and regardless of the form of action that might heretofore have been employed. Clark, Code Pleading, 78127 (2d ed. 1947). For a thorough analysis of this area, see Donaldson and Walls, Merger of Law and Equity in Alabama-Some Considerations, 33 Ala.Law. 134 (1972).
The statutes of limitation, Code of Ala., § 6-2-1 et seq., are phrased in terms of the kind of wrong sought to be remedied and the kind of relief demanded, rather than in terms of the writ used. Thus they will be applicable to actions under these rules in accordance with the claim as proved, rather than the language of the complaint or the form of action which might have been employed prior to the rules. The statement in Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Lacey, 17 Ala.App. 146, 82 So. 636 (1919), that a particular provision of the statutes of limitation “was not designed to destroy the distinction between trespass and action on the case” should have no continuing vitality; these rules are expressly designed to destroy such distinctions but do not affect the result of existing interpretations of the statutes of limitations.
The mandate of this rule is emphasized also by Rules 8(e)(2) and 18(a), which allow joinder of legal and equitable claims, and Rule 52(a), which prescribes one standard for review in actions tried to the court, whether they be actions historically “equitable” or actions in which a jury was waived.
Although these rules refer throughout to the “clerk,” this term is used as referring also to the register in chancery. Rule 81(d). For administrative purposes only, suits are to be filed with the register or with the clerk as would have been proper prior to adoption of these rules. But adequate provision is made for transfer of the file from one office to the other, where it was filed in the wrong office, and the transfer of the file, or the particular office in which the action is filed, is in no way to affect the proceedings in the action, which is to continue in the same manner regardless of the office which keeps the file. See Rule 79(f).
Committee Comments to October 1, 1995, Amendment to Rule 2(dc)
Rule 2(dc) was amended to reflect the codification of the Judicial Implementation Act.
District Court Committee Comments
The Code of Alabama provides at §12-12-30 that the district court shall not exercise equitable jurisdiction except to the extent necessary for the assertion of defenses or compulsory counterclaims. Consequently, the provision for one form of action stated in Rule 2(dc) must be read in context of that limitation.
Plain-English Summary
Before these rules, a person suing over a wrong had to pick the right legal box for the claim — certain wrongs were pursued as actions at law, others only as suits in equity, and each came with its own procedures and courts. Pick the wrong box, and a claim could fail no matter how strong the underlying facts were. Rule 2 tears down that structure. It declares that there is now one form of action, called a civil action, that covers all of it.
This single sentence does two big things. First, it merges law and equity, so a plaintiff can seek both money damages and equitable relief like an injunction in the same lawsuit, without needing separate proceedings. Second, it dissolves the old procedural walls between the historic forms of action, so a party is no longer locked into one theory of the case from the start; contract and tort claims, for example, can be joined and pursued together.
Rule 2 does not change the underlying substantive law. The legal distinctions between different types of claims, and the deadlines and rules that attach to each, still exist. What changes is procedure: parties no longer need separate lawsuits or separate courts to pursue different kinds of relief arising from the same dispute. Rule 2 is also the foundation for the rules that follow it on joining claims and parties, since it is what makes broad joinder possible in the first place.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a "civil action" under Rule 2?
It is the single, unified form of lawsuit that Rule 2 establishes for all civil claims, replacing the older separate actions at law and suits in equity.
Can a lawsuit include both legal and equitable claims after Rule 2?
Yes. Rule 2 merges law and equity, so a single civil action can include claims for money damages alongside claims for equitable relief such as an injunction.
Does Rule 2 eliminate the right to a jury trial for claims that used to be handled in equity?
No. Rule 2 changes procedure, not the right to a jury trial, which is preserved separately for claims that are legal in nature.
Does merging law and equity change the substantive legal rules that apply to a claim?
No. Rule 2 changes only the procedural form of the action; it does not alter the underlying substantive law or the legal distinctions between different types of claims.
How does Rule 2 relate to the rules on joining claims and parties?
Rule 2 is what makes broad joinder possible in the first place — by collapsing separate forms of action into one, it clears the way for the joinder rules to let a party combine multiple claims and remedies in a single case.
Source & verification. The rule text, amendment history, and Committee Comments are reproduced verbatim from the
official Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure (Ala. R. Civ. P. 2). Prescribed by the Supreme Court of Alabama (Ala. Const. amend. 328, § 6.11). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified July 6, 2026. ·
Official source
Also known as: one form of actionmerger of law and equitycivil action definedAla. R. Civ. P. 2