408 P.3d 628
Okla. Civ. App.2017Background
- DHS/CSS filed a paternity/support petition (2010) establishing Pack as father and ordering child support; custody/visitation was not addressed.
- Pack filed a petition to establish visitation in May 2016 in Delaware County, Oklahoma.
- Jones (mother) filed a special appearance and motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting the child had lived in Arkansas for years and Oklahoma lacked contacts.
- The trial court held a jurisdictional hearing, dismissed Pack’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and Jones then sought $2,195 in attorney fees and costs.
- The trial court awarded Jones attorney fees and ordered Pack to pay monthly installments; Pack appealed, challenging entitlement (not amount) of the fee award.
- The Court of Civil Appeals reviewed de novo and concluded no statutory or equitable basis supported the fee award, reversing the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Jones's Argument | Pack's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mother was entitled to attorney fees after trial court dismissed father’s visitation petition for lack of jurisdiction | Fees necessary because Pack should have filed in Arkansas and his filing forced unnecessary litigation in Oklahoma | Oklahoma had jurisdiction due to prior Oklahoma filings and paternity order; fees not warranted | Reversed — no statutory or inherent equitable basis to award fees under these facts |
| Whether UCCJEA §551-208/§551-312 authorized fee award | Jones relied on UCCJEA provisions enabling fees when a court declines jurisdiction for unjustifiable conduct or enforces another state’s determination | Pack denied unjustifiable conduct and argued UCCJEA remedies did not apply | Reversed — no finding of unjustifiable conduct and no foreign custody determination to enforce, so UCCJEA provisions inapplicable |
| Whether Uniform Parentage Act or related statutes authorized fees | Jones argued fees tied to parentage/custody litigation incurred defending jurisdictional filing | Pack argued prior paternity order existed and this filing was only for visitation; no custody determination was made | Reversed — Uniform Parentage Act and custody statutes do not authorize fees because the court made no custody/parentage determination in response to the visitation petition |
| Whether trial court could invoke inherent equitable supervisory power to award fees | Jones invoked equitable power (citing precedent allowing fees for oppressive/abusive conduct) | Pack argued his conduct was not oppressive and he lacked resources; filing was ordinary attempt to obtain visitation | Reversed — no oppressive/abusive conduct shown; equitable power not implicated and father’s unemployment counseled against fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Finnell v. Seismic, 67 P.3d 339 (Okla. 2003) (legal questions and entitlement to fees reviewed de novo)
- Eagle Bluff, L.L.C. v. Taylor, 237 P.3d 173 (Okla. 2010) (general rule that attorney fees require specific statutory or contractual basis)
- McKiddy v. Alarkon, 254 P.3d 141 (Okla. Civ. App. 2011) (statute allowing fees in dissolution does not apply where parents were never married)
- Briggeman v. Hargrove, 318 P.3d 1130 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014) (trial court’s inherent equitable power may permit fee awards for oppressive or abusive jurisdictional conduct)
- Boatman v. Boatman, 404 P.3d 822 (Okla. 2017) (reiterating prohibition on awarding fees absent statute or contract)
- Hollingshead v. Elias, 376 P.3d 936 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016) (entitlement to attorney fees is a question of law reviewed de novo)