M.M., through his next friend Erin Kirkland v. State of Alaska, Department of Administration, Office of Public Advocacy, Leslie Ridle, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Administration, and Chad Holt, in his official capacity as Director of the Office of Public Advocacy
462 P.3d 539
Alaska2020Background
- M.M., an incapacitated person, had the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) appointed as his public guardian; OPA contracted with Assets, Inc. and an assisted‑living representative to provide M.M.’s housing and care, and the contract called for quarterly visits.
- M.M., through next friend Erin Kirkland, sued the State (including OPA) alleging OPA failed to meet statutory duties: excessive caseloads, lack of written standards, and failure to visit wards in person at least once per quarter.
- The superior court granted summary judgment to the State on most claims but left the quarterly‑visit issue for further factual development; the parties stipulated facts about who visited M.M. and when.
- The superior court concluded OPA did not personally visit every quarter but that contracted service providers conducted regular in‑person contacts and reported to OPA; the court held OPA may meet its statutory visitation duty by contracting for services.
- The State sought attorney’s fees under Civ. R. 82(b)(2); the superior court awarded $12,500 and (erroneously, per this opinion) held Kirkland personally liable for M.M.’s fees.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that OPA may contract with service providers to fulfill its quarterly‑visit duty, reversed the ruling that Kirkland was personally liable, and remanded for the trial court to reconsider the fee award in light of that reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPA may satisfy AS 13.26.720(c)(2) (quarterly in‑person visits) by contracting with service providers | Kirkland/M.M.: Contracting that hands off the core duty to unqualified contractors improperly delegates the duty and contravenes AS 13.26.740 | State: AS 13.26.720(d)(1) authorizes OPA to "contract for services necessary to carry out" duties; contracting differs from delegating to staff/volunteers | Affirmed: Contracting for services that assist OPA can satisfy the visitation duty; delegation rules in AS 13.26.740 do not automatically apply to contractors |
| Whether contractors assisting OPA must meet the staff/volunteer qualifications in AS 13.26.740 | M.M.: All third parties performing guardian duties must meet AS 13.26.740 eligibility/certification requirements | State: Requiring contractors to meet those qualifications would render AS 13.26.720(d)(1) superfluous; contracting is distinct from delegation | Held: Statutory text, purpose, and policy support allowing OPA to contract without imposing AS 13.26.740’s staff/volunteer prerequisites on contractors |
| Whether a next friend (Kirkland) is personally liable for attorney’s fees assessed against an incapacitated plaintiff | M.M.: AS 09.60.030 makes a guardian (not a next friend) liable; next friends are not mentioned and thus should not be held personally liable | State: A next friend is the guardian "by whom the plaintiff appeared" and fits AS 09.60.030’s language | Reversed: Court finds AS 09.60.030 does not expressly include next friends; superior court erred in holding Kirkland personally liable |
| Whether the fee award should stand and/or be reconsidered given indigence and access‑to‑courts concerns | M.M.: Fee award chills access to courts for indigent/incapacitated plaintiffs; reduction or denial warranted | State: Prevailing party in non‑monetary cases is entitled to 20% of fees under Civ. R. 82(b)(2); trial court within discretion to award | Remanded: Because next friend is not personally liable, trial court must reconsider the fee award amount and allocation in light of that holding |
Key Cases Cited
- Fenner v. Municipality of Anchorage, 53 P.3d 573 (summary judgment standard)
- Bibi v. Elfrink, 408 P.3d 809 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Collier v. Harris, 261 P.3d 397 (abuse‑of‑discretion review for fee awards)
- Brandner v. Pease, 361 P.3d 915 (de novo review of legal questions in fee awards)
- David S. v. Jared H., 308 P.3d 862 (affirming downward variance of fee awards given indigence/access concerns)
- Prentzel v. State, Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 169 P.3d 573 (approving fee adjustments for indigent litigants)
- Russell ex rel. J.N. v. Virg‑In, 258 P.3d 795 (treating AS 09.60.030 as governing fees where a parent/guardian sues on behalf of a minor)