JONES v. PACK
2018 OK CIV APP 3
| Okla. Civ. App. | 2017Background
- CSS filed a paternity/support petition in 2010; an agreed order found Pack is the father and set child support but did not address custody or visitation.
- Pack filed a petition to establish visitation on May 5, 2016, in Delaware County, Oklahoma.
- Jones (mother) had been living in Arkansas with the child since about 2008 and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
- The trial court held a jurisdictional hearing, dismissed Pack’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and awarded Jones $2,195 in attorney fees (monthly payments ordered).
- Pack appealed only the award of attorney fees; he did not contest the amount or reasonableness.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reversed, concluding no statutory or equitable basis supported the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Jones' Argument | Pack's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones was entitled to attorney fees after Oklahoma dismissed Pack's visitation petition for lack of jurisdiction | Fees necessary because Pack should have filed in Arkansas and his filing caused unnecessary fees | No statutory or equitable basis for fees; filing a visitation petition was not unjustifiable | Reversed — no statutory or inherent-equity basis to award fees under the facts |
| Applicability of UCCJEA §551-208 (fees when party engaged in unjustifiable conduct) | UCCJEA allows fees when a party invoked jurisdiction unjustifiably | Pack’s filing did not constitute unjustifiable conduct; no finding of such in record | Not applicable — court did not find unjustifiable conduct; mere filing not enough |
| Applicability of UCCJEA §551-312 (fees to prevailing party in enforcement/recognition) | UCCJEA permits fees to prevailing party in enforcement contexts | No out-of-state custody determination was before the Oklahoma court to invoke §551-312 | Not applicable — no foreign custody determination to enforce or recognize |
| Applicability of Uniform Parentage Act or other statutes permitting fees (e.g., 10 O.S. §7700-636, 43 O.S. §109.2) | Fees allowable in custody/parentage proceedings | No custody or parentage adjudication resulted from the visitation petition; paternity already adjudicated | Not applicable — statutes cited govern parentage/custody determinations or parentage proceedings, which did not occur here |
| Inherent equitable power to award fees (Briggeman) | Equity may allow fees where opposing conduct is oppressive/abusive | Father’s conduct was not oppressive/abusive; travel burden and circumstances do not justify equity award; father unemployed | Not invoked — no oppressive/abusive conduct shown; equity did not support awarding fees given circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (standard of review for legal questions; de novo review)
- Eagle Bluff, L.L.C. v. Taylor, 237 P.3d 173 (Okla. 2010) (principle that attorney fees require statutory or contractual basis)
- Boatman v. Boatman, 404 P.3d 822 (Okla. 2017) (reaffirming rule that courts lack authority to award fees absent statute or contract)
- McKiddy v. Alarkon, 254 P.3d 141 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (statute permitting fees in dissolution did not apply where parents never married)
- Briggeman v. Hargrove, 318 P.3d 1130 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (recognizing courts’ inherent equitable power to award fees where conduct is oppressive or abusive)
- Hollingshead v. Elias, 376 P.3d 936 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (entitlement to attorney fees is a question of law reviewed de novo)