In Re: Jackson H.
M2014-01810-COA-R3-JV
Tenn. Ct. App.Oct 28, 2016Background
- Juvenile court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) for Jackson H.; initially an administrative fee was assessed but parents’ ability to pay was not determined until later.
- GAL investigated and filed (and later non-suited) a dependency-and-neglect petition and filed a contempt motion against Mother for alleged improper disclosures.
- GAL submitted a detailed affidavit seeking $5,454 in fees for work from Dec. 5, 2013 to Mar. 7, 2014.
- Juvenile court found both parents were not indigent, awarded the full GAL fee, and ordered each parent to pay one-half.
- Mother appealed to the circuit court (de novo); she subpoenaed GAL records, which GAL moved to quash; circuit court granted the quash, heard testimony, and affirmed the fee award and the 50/50 split.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Mother challenged notice, discovery limits, GAL authority/reasonableness of fees, and applicability of Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13; GAL sought dismissal as untimely and requested appellate attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (GAL) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether parents could be ordered to pay GAL fees | Mother: lacked timely notice she could be assessed; therefore fee order improper | GAL: parents were notified and not indigent; court may order payment if financially able | Court: notice was imperfect but sufficient; statute allows ordering parents to pay after notice/hearing; affirmed fee allocation |
| Whether circuit court erred by quashing Mother’s subpoena/limiting discovery | Mother: subpoenaed GAL communications not privileged and needed to challenge fees | GAL: requests overly broad; work product and client (child)-GAL communications protected; court should limit production | Court: no abuse of discretion in quashing/limiting discovery; GAL–child relationship and work-product protection justify limits |
| Whether GAL’s fees were unreasonable or outside her authority (e.g., filing petitions/contempt) | Mother: fees unreasonable, unnecessary, beyond GAL authority; GAL’s filings were counter-productive and later non-suited | GAL: filings authorized by juvenile court and Supreme Court Rule 40; time entries related to permitted duties and were reasonable | Court: fees reasonable; GAL acted within Rule 40 and court orders; lack of success alone does not make fees unreasonable |
| Whether Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 13 caps GAL compensation here | Mother: GAL should be limited by Rule 13 caps despite reappointment and parental payment | GAL: Rule 13 applied when AOC paid; when parents can pay, statutory scheme allows different recovery | Court: Rule 13 caps do not automatically limit fees when parents are found able to pay; statutes permit collecting reasonable fees from parents |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Schofield, 460 S.W.3d 113 (Tenn. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for pretrial discovery rulings)
- Lee Med., Inc. v. Beecher, 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (framework for abuse-of-discretion review)
- Lovlace v. Copley, 418 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2013) (presumption of correctness in discretionary rulings)
- Wright ex rel. Wright v. Wright, 337 S.W.3d 166 (Tenn. 2011) (factors relevant to reasonableness of fees)
- Combustion Eng’g, Inc. v. Kennedy, 562 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1978) (definition of frivolous appeal as utterly devoid of merit)
- Davis v. Gulf Ins. Grp., 546 S.W.2d 583 (Tenn. 1977) (statute awarding damages for frivolous appeals must be strictly applied)