364 S.W.3d 684
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- DSS opened a child-abuse investigation in Oct 1998 and placed Goines on the Missouri Child Abuse and Neglect Registry without proper Form CS-21 notice.
- Goines learned of the listing in Nov 2006 and sought information about removal, but DSS directed her to hire an attorney.
- DSS eventually produced the complete file but did not provide a properly completed CS-21 or proof of notice, nor an opportunity for CANRB review.
- On Mar 9, 2009, Goines filed a declaratory judgment action alleging due-process violations and requesting injunctive relief.
- Trial court found no credible evidence that a formally executed CS-21 or mailed notice existed and ordered DSS to remove Goines’ name; it later denied attorney’s fees.
- The appellate issue is whether attorney’s fees were permissible under §536.087, §105.711, or equitable exceptions, and whether sovereign immunity barred such an award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney’s fees under §536.087 | Goines seeks fees under §536.087 as prevailing party. | DSS argues CANRB/not a contested agency proceeding; §536.087 does not apply. | Fees not authorized under §536.087. |
| Sovereign immunity waiver | §105.711 waives immunity for attorney’s fees. | §105.711 does not authorize such fees and does not waive immunity. | §105.711 does not permit fee awards; immunity not fully waived for this claim. |
| American Rule and exceptions | Very unusual circumstances/equitable balance of benefits justify fees. | No unusual circumstances; case does not fit common fund or common benefit doctrines. | No exception to the American Rule; no fee shift. |
| Special-circumstances exception | DSS’s conduct was not substantially justified; fees warranted. | State’s trial conduct not frivolous or punitive; evidence credibility issue for trial. | Special-circumstances exception not satisfied; no attorney’s fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review in Missouri appellate cases)
- Kubley v. Brooks, 141 S.W.3d 21 (Mo. banc 2004) (sovereign immunity concept and consent to suit in non-tort suits)
- Gerken v. Sherman, 351 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (enables non-tort claims; agency can sue or be sued; waiver of immunity for non-tort claims)
- Lipic v. State, 93 S.W.3d 839 (Mo.App.E.D.2002) (CANRB proceedings not an agency proceeding; §536.087 not applicable)
- Jamison v. Missouri Dep't of Soc. Servs., Div. of Family Servs., 218 S.W.3d 399 (Mo.banc 2007) (due-process requirements and notice before listing on Registry)