Rachel F. Shoenthal v. Dekalb County Employees Retirement System Pension Board
805 S.E.2d 650
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Judge Elliott Shoenthal completed and signed a beneficiary change form for his DeKalb County pension on Nov. 25, 2013, but did not mail or otherwise deliver it before his death on Dec. 1, 2013; the form was later found in his desk.
- After his death, his wife Fran claimed and received pension payments; Plaintiffs (his daughters) hand-delivered the signed change-of-beneficiary form to the Pension Board and sued the Board and Fran, alleging the Board should honor the change.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the Board, concluding Section 908 of the Pension Code required written notice to the Board and Shoenthal had not provided it.
- The trial court then awarded the Board $71,318.71 in attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14, finding Plaintiffs’ claims frivolous and lacking substantial justification.
- On discretionary appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the fee award, holding the Plaintiffs’ statutory interpretation and reliance on doctrines like substantial compliance presented arguable legal issues of first impression and were not frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Plaintiffs’ claim against the Board lacked any justiciable issue so as to warrant OCGA § 9-15-14(a) fees | Shoenthal’s signed form and later delivery constituted "written notice" or at least raised factual/legal questions (substantial compliance) | Plaintiffs’ reading is foreclosed by the plain language of Section 908; no caselaw supports Plaintiffs, so claim was frivolous | Reversed: Plaintiffs’ position was arguable; fees under §9-15-14 inappropriate |
| Whether Plaintiffs lacked substantial justification for suing the Board (OCGA § 9-15-14(b)) | Cited Westmoreland and substantial-compliance principles to show factual issues and arguable legal support | Board argued Westmoreland didn’t apply and strict compliance was required because it had an interest and took a side | Reversed: Plaintiffs had arguable support; claim not substantially groundless |
| Whether absence of prior caselaw makes a statutory argument frivolous | Novel question of first impression can still be reasonably asserted when statute is ambiguous about delivery method | Board argued lack of precedent shows the position was unreasonable and foreclosed | Court held absence of precedent does not automatically make an argument frivolous; first-impression issues are protected from fee awards |
| Whether factual questions (intent, substantial compliance) existed to preclude a fee award | Plaintiffs pointed to factual disputes (intent, substantial performance of change) making relief plausible | Board asserted legal defect eliminated any justiciable factual dispute | Court found factual and legal questions sufficient to bar fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Shoenthal v. Shoenthal, 337 Ga. App. 515 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (court construed §908 and held form not effective where not delivered to board)
- Westmoreland v. Westmoreland, 280 Ga. 33 (Ga. 2005) (recognizes substantial-compliance exception where insured did substantially all required to effect change)
- Gibson Constr. Co. v. GAA Acquisitions I, 314 Ga. App. 674 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (statutory ambiguity can preclude fee award under OCGA § 9-15-14)
- Reynolds v. Clark, 322 Ga. App. 788 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (standards for awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14)
- Fox v. City of Cumming, 298 Ga. App. 134 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (reversing fee award where statute had not been interpreted and statutory text arguably supported plaintiff)
- Russell v. Sparmer, 339 Ga. App. 207 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (relevant question is whether some authority arguably supported the position)