BRIGGEMAN v. HARGROVE
2014 OK CIV APP 13
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2013Background
- Mother (Candace Hargrove), an Ohio resident, defended an emergency custody and modification action filed by Father (Andrew Briggeman) in Tulsa County after Father refused to return the child to Ohio.
- Father filed the emergency custody application in April 2010 while exercising visitation in Oklahoma; hearings persisted for months without resolution.
- Mother petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for original jurisdiction and a writ of prohibition; the Court assumed jurisdiction and granted the writ, holding Tulsa County lacked jurisdiction and directing return of the child to Mother.
- After the Supreme Court order, Mother sought attorney fees, costs, and expenses in the Tulsa County proceeding under 10 O.S. §7700-636 and on equitable grounds (citing City Nat. Bank v. Owens).
- The trial court dismissed Mother’s fee application, reasoning the Supreme Court’s prohibition order prevented the Tulsa court from awarding fees; Mother appealed.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court retained inherent equitable supervisory power to assess attorney fees for oppressive or abusive conduct and must determine on remand whether fees are proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tulsa trial court could award attorney fees after Oklahoma Supreme Court granted writ of prohibition | Hargrove: trial court may assess fees under 10 O.S. §7700-636 or its inherent equitable power for oppressive litigation conduct | Briggeman: Supreme Court’s writ divested Tulsa court of jurisdiction, so trial court cannot hear or award fees | Court: Reversed dismissal; trial court has inherent equitable supervisory power to consider awarding fees and must determine on remand if facts warrant assessment |
| Whether 10 O.S. §7700-636 supplies authority for fees in post-paternity custody proceedings | Hargrove: statute authorizes assessment of fees in parentage adjudications, applicable here | Briggeman: (implicit) statute or jurisdictional limits preclude local award after prohibition | Court: Did not decide statutory applicability on the record; remanded for trial court to determine propriety of fee award under case facts |
| Whether prior case law (Owens) supports fee award as equitable remedy | Hargrove: Owens recognized inherent equitable power to award fees for oppressive conduct | Briggeman: Owens was superseded by statutory changes (23 O.S. §103) | Court: Noted Owens was superseded by statute but affirmed inherent equitable supervisory power under Winters to award fees where conduct is oppressive |
| Whether appeal should be dismissed for procedural defects or lack of jurisdiction | Briggeman: filed motion to dismiss appeal | Hargrove: appealed trial court dismissal | Court: Denied Father’s motion to dismiss appeal because reversal and remand were warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Winters v. City of Oklahoma City, 740 P.2d 724 (Okla. 1987) (recognizes a court's inherent equitable supervisory power to award fees for oppressive conduct)
- Joliff v. Joliff, 829 P.2d 34 (Okla. 1992) (forum of child’s home state is proper for custody disputes under uniform child custody principles)
- City Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Owens, 565 P.2d 4 (Okla. 1977) (discussed as precedent for equitable fee awards; later superseded by statute)
- Miller v. Miller, 956 P.2d 887 (Okla. 1998) (standard of de novo review for dismissals on the trial court record)