Nicole Greenwood v. State Public Defender
2017 Iowa App. LEXIS 846
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Nicole Greenwood was appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) for three children in combined CINA proceedings; the juvenile court ultimately found guardianship with grandparents was in the children’s best interest.
- The juvenile court ordered Greenwood to prepare and file guardianship paperwork in probate court; Greenwood did so and the juvenile court later transferred jurisdiction to probate and closed the CINA cases.
- Greenwood submitted an invoice to the State Public Defender (SPD) for 3.5 hours preparing the guardianship paperwork; the SPD denied payment for that time as work in probate (chapter 633) is excluded from payment by the indigent defense fund (Iowa Code § 815.11).
- Greenwood sought judicial review in juvenile court; the juvenile court, relying on its order that Greenwood prepare the paperwork and the role of the work in achieving permanency, ordered the SPD to pay the fee claim.
- The SPD appealed, arguing it lacked statutory or administrative authority to reimburse work performed in a separate probate proceeding even if ordered by the juvenile court.
- The appellate court reversed, holding the SPD is not authorized to pay for work performed in probate (chapter 633) despite the juvenile court’s order; the court distinguished earlier precedents and relied on statutory exclusions and limits to the indigent defense fund.
Issues
| Issue | Greenwood's Argument | SPD's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPD must pay GAL fees for time spent preparing probate guardianship paperwork ordered by juvenile court | The work was performed while representing indigent juveniles and was ordered by the juvenile court to achieve permanency, so it is compensable from the indigent defense fund | Statute and administrative rules exclude costs for proceedings under chapter 633 (probate); SPD has no authority to pay for probate work | Reversed: SPD not required to pay for probate guardianship work; such costs are excluded from the indigent defense fund |
| Whether the juvenile court could legally order SPD to reimburse GAL for probate work | The juvenile court’s order and the direct link between the guardianship and CINA case make reimbursement proper | Juvenile court lacked authority to obligate SPD to pay for work in a separate chapter 633 proceeding | Juvenile court exceeded authority; it could not compel SPD to pay for probate work |
| Proper procedural vehicle for SPD review of the fee-order | Greenwood contended appellate review was available | SPD filed a notice of appeal; statute was amended in 2006 allowing appeals from final judgments on fee decisions | Notice of appeal was proper under amended statute; appeal permitted |
| Whether Polk County precedent requires payment for out-of-court social-services-type work | Greenwood relied on Polk County to show court-ordered nontraditional legal work can be compensable | SPD distinguished Polk County because no statute expressly prohibited payment there; here statute expressly excludes chapter 633 costs | Court distinguished Polk County and found statutory exclusion dispositive; payment not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Polk Cty., 620 N.W.2d 268 (Iowa 2000) (approved payment for court-appointed counsel’s work addressing client’s housing needs tied to CINA permanency)
- Maghee v. State, 639 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa 2002) (court cannot order state to compensate appointed counsel beyond statutory authority)
- Simmons v. State Pub. Def., 791 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2010) (standard of review for district court decisions on denial of court-appointed fee claims)
- Crowell v. State Pub. Def., 845 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2014) (legislative amendment permitting appeals from final judgments on fee-review hearings)
- State Pub. Def. v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Warren Cty., 594 N.W.2d 34 (Iowa 1999) (historical rule that certiorari was the proper mode of review for trial court allowance of appointed counsel fees)