Cooling v. State, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1187
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Father (Nathan Cooling) was pursued by the Family Support Division for $45,900 in alleged child-support arrears; the Division issued an income-withholding order but later an administrative hearing officer found father owed no arrearage.
- The Division did not contest the hearing officer’s no-arrearage determination, refunded withheld income, and did not report father to consumer-reporting agencies.
- Father sought attorney’s fees under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 536.087 as the prevailing party; the administrative hearing officer denied fees on grounds the matter was not an “agency proceeding” and that the State was substantially justified.
- On judicial review the circuit court disagreed with the officer, found the Division not substantially justified, and awarded father $2,500 in attorney’s fees.
- The circuit court later vacated the fee award as premature, reasoning that Section 536.087.4 required holding fee decisions in abeyance pending final resolution of appeals; the Division conceded the circuit court’s judgment was not final because the court had not entered a fee award.
- The court of appeals sua sponte dismissed the appeal for lack of a final judgment, holding the circuit court’s judgment was not final (it determined fees were due but did not enter an award) and remanded for entry of a final judgment; it also held the circuit court erred to vacate the fee award as premature because subsection 4 applies to the underlying merits, not the separate fee proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether underlying administrative child-support proceedings constituted an "agency proceeding" under § 536.087 | Father: proceedings were agency adjudication and he prevailed, so § 536.087 applies | Division: disputed character or applicability of § 536.087 to these proceedings | Court of appeals did not reach merits; circuit court had found father prevailed and fee entitlement premised on agency proceeding |
| Whether the State was "substantially justified" in its position | Father: Division was not substantially justified, so fees warranted | Division: its actions were substantially justified (and statute requires holding fee decision pending final merits) | Circuit court found Division not substantially justified; appellate court dismissed appeal for lack of final judgment |
| Whether a circuit court may enter a fee award before all appeals are finally resolved | Father: § 536.087.4 requires holding fee applications in abeyance only while the underlying merits remain unresolved, not while entitlement to fees is being reviewed | Division: fee awards must be held in abeyance until final, unreviewable decision on the merits or fee entitlement | Court of appeals held subsection 4 governs the underlying merits determination, not the separate fee proceeding; vacating the award as premature was error |
| Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to decide this appeal | Father: urged an exception under § 536.087.4 for appellate review despite nonfinal judgment | Division: conceded judgment was not final and urged remand for entry of final judgment | Court of appeals held it lacked authority because no final judgment disposed of all issues and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ndegwa v. KSSO, LLC, 371 S.W.3d 798 (Mo. banc 2012) (final-judgment rule: appellate court lacks authority absent final judgment)
- Hutchings v. Roling, 151 S.W.3d 85 (Mo.App.E.D.2005) (fee awards premature when underlying merits had not been finally determined)
- Lincoln Cnty. Stone Co. v. Koenig, 21 S.W.3d 142 (Mo.App.E.D.2000) (fee decision not ripe where underlying agency merits remained unresolved)
- Sprenger v. Mo. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 248 S.W.3d 626 (Mo.App.W.D.2008) (circuit court entered fee award despite subsequent appeal of merits)
- Hernandez v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts, 936 S.W.2d 894 (Mo.App.W.D.1997) (fees for fee-petition work recoverable; fee proceeding distinct from underlying action)