Opinion ID: 1925563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Douglas County's Appeal: Indigency Determination

Text: On February 18, 2000, a GAL, who is a practicing lawyer, was appointed to conduct an investigation to protect the interests of the parties' four children. The GAL did conduct an investigation and filed a written report with the court. On June 4, 2002, the GAL filed an application for payment of fees. After a hearing, the court determined that the GAL charges were fair and reasonable and that the GAL was entitled to fees totaling $3,089. In addition, the court determined that Katrina and Mark were indigent and ordered Douglas County to pay the GAL fees. On appeal, Douglas County argues that Katrina and Mark are not indigent for purposes of § 42-358. Section 42-358(1) provides: The court may appoint an attorney to protect the interests of any minor children of the parties. Such attorney shall be empowered to make independent investigations and to cause witnesses to appear and testify on matters pertinent to the welfare of the children. The court shall by order fix the fee, including disbursements, for such attorney, which amount shall be taxed as costs and paid by the parties as ordered. If the court finds that the party responsible is indigent, the court may order the county to pay costs. (Emphasis supplied.) As an initial matter, we note that although the GAL appointed in this case is an attorney, she was appointed as a GAL in the traditional sense of conducting an investigation and reporting to the court, rather than as the court-appointed legal advocate of the children. See Betz v. Betz, 254 Neb. 341, 575 N.W.2d 406 (1998) (noting difference between GAL appointed under court's inherent equitable powers and attorney appointed as advocate for minor child). Therefore, we must decide if a GAL appointed by the court under these circumstances can be awarded his or her fees under § 42-358(1). In 1992, § 42-358(1) was amended to add the last two sentences of the current version of the statute in order to provide courts with statutory authority to award fees to court-appointed attorneys in domestic relations cases. However, it was certainly understood at the time that both attorneys and GAL's were appointed pursuant to the authority of § 42-358(1), even though the section only references an attorney. See, Ritter v. Ritter, 234 Neb. 203, 450 N.W.2d 204 (1990) (noting § 42-358 provides authority to appoint GAL to protect interests of minor children); Nye v. Nye, 213 Neb. 364, 329 N.W.2d 346 (1983) (same); Ford v. Ford, 191 Neb. 548, 216 N.W.2d 176 (1974) (noting § 42-358 provides authority to appoint attorney to protect interests of minor children); Pieck v. Pieck, 190 Neb. 419, 209 N.W.2d 191 (1973) (same). Moreover, prior to 1992, the practice of awarding fees to both court-appointed GAL's and court-appointed attorneys was well established in domestic relations cases. See, Nye, supra (awarding fees to GAL); Hermance v. Hermance, 194 Neb. 720, 235 N.W.2d 231 (1975) (awarding fees to counsel appointed to represent minor children). It is, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the 1992 amendment to § 42-358(1) was intended to codify what was, in fact, occurring in practice at that time. In other words, by amending § 42-358(1), the Legislature granted courts statutory authority to award fees to court-appointed counsel, whether the attorney acted as a GAL or as a legal advocate for the minor children in a case. A review of the legislative history relating to the amendment to § 42-358(1) supports this conclusion. The introducer of the amendment stated that the purpose of the amendment was to codify existing practice while making it clear to reluctant judges that they indeed had the authority to tax the fees of appointees as costs. Floor Debate, L.B. 1255, 92d Leg., 2d Sess. 13159 (Apr. 9, 1992). Moreover, in the statement of intent, and throughout the committee testimony and floor debate, the introducer used the terms attorneys and GAL's interchangeably when discussing the amendment to § 42-358(1). Statement of Intent, Judiciary Committee, 92d Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 13, 1992); Judiciary Committee Hearing, 92d Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 21, 1992); Floor Debate, 92d Leg., 2d Sess. 13159-60 (Apr. 9, 1992). The introducer was obviously cognizant of the then understood interpretation of § 42-358(1), i.e., that it provided authority for courts to appoint attorneys to act as either a GAL or a legal advocate for children in domestic relations cases. The amendment to § 42-358(1) was offered to clarify the power of a court to fix fees in those circumstances. In sum, our decision in Betz v. Betz, 254 Neb. 341, 575 N.W.2d 406 (1998), did not address the question presented here; while the distinction announced in Betz properly denotes the duties and obligations of an appointee, it is not relevant for purposes of determining an appointee's entitlement to fees for services rendered. Whether an attorney is appointed as a GAL or as a legal advocate for the children under § 42-358(1), he or she is entitled to collect a reasonable fee under the provisions of § 42-358(1). The issue in the present case arises, however, because the trial court found both parties to be indigent under § 42-358(1) and ordered Douglas County to pay the GAL fees. Because the statute does not provide the definition of indigency, we must determine when a party is indigent for purposes of § 42-358(1). To do so, we turn to the familiar rules of statutory interpretation. [7] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court. Unisys Corp. v. Nebraska Life & Health Ins. Guar. Assn., ante p. 158, 673 N.W.2d 15 (2004). Relevant here, in the absence of anything to the contrary, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. An appellate court will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. Id. [8, 9] Moreover, a court must place on a statute a reasonable construction which best achieves the statute's purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat that purpose. Brown v. Harbor Fin. Mortgage Corp., ante p. 218, 673 N.W.2d 35 (2004). In other words, in construing a statute, a court must look to the statutory objective to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose to be served, and then must place on the statute a reasonable or liberal construction that best achieves the statute's purpose, rather than a construction that defeats the statutory purpose. Central States Found. v. Balka, 256 Neb. 369, 590 N.W.2d 832 (1999). Although the term indigent is not defined in § 42-358(1), we conclude that it is unambiguous. Therefore, we give the word its plain and ordinary meaning. Unisys Corp., supra . Indigent is defined as [l]acking the means of subsistence; impoverished; needy. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 670 (1969). Similarly, in 7 The Oxford English Dictionary 868 (2d ed. 1989), the following definition of indigent is provided: Lacking the necessaries of life; in needy circumstances; characterized by poverty; poor, needy. Other courts that have examined the word indigent in the civil context have come to a similar definition. See, Savoy v. Savoy, 433 Pa. Super. 549, 555, 641 A.2d 596, 599-600 (1994), quoting Verna v. Verna, 288 Pa. Super. 511, 432 A.2d 630 (1981) (`[i]ndigent persons are those who do not have sufficient means to pay for their own care and maintenance'); Destitute v. Putman Hospital, 125 Vt. 289, 294, 215 A.2d 134, 138 (1965) ([i]ndigent, in a general sense, ordinarily indicates one who lacks property or means of a comfortable subsistence, and for that reason is needy or in want). Further, we note that although the text of § 42-358(1) makes it clear that its underlying purpose is to protect the best interests of minor children through the appointment of attorneys, its secondary purpose is to provide a statutory payment mechanism through which GAL's and attorneys can be appropriately compensated for their work. Statement of Intent, L.B. 1255, Judiciary Committee, 92d Leg., 2d Sess. (Feb. 13, 1992). [10] With the foregoing in mind, we hold that, for purposes of § 42-358(1), a person is indigent if he or she is unable to pay the GAL or attorney fees without prejudicing, in a meaningful way, his or her financial ability to provide the necessities of life, such as food, clothing, shelter, and medical care for himself or herself or his or her legal dependents. See, e.g., Jordan v. Jordan, 983 P.2d 1258, 1263 (Alaska 1999), quoting Alaska Stat. § 18.85.170(4) (Lexis 2002) (indigent person is `a person who, at the time need is determined, does not have sufficient assets, credit, or other means to provide payment of an attorney and all other necessary expenses of representation without depriving the party or the party's dependents of food, clothing, or shelter'); In re Marriage of Kopp, 320 N.W.2d 660, 662 (Iowa App. 1982) (indigent is a person who would be unable to employ counsel without prejudicing his financial ability to provide economic necessities for himself or his family). Cf. Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-3901(3) (Reissue 1995) and 83-1008 (Cum. Supp. 2002). [11] We determine that, as in a criminal case, a finding of indigency under § 42-358(1) is a matter within the initial discretion of the trial court, and such a finding will not be set aside on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion by the trial court. See State v. Richter, 225 Neb. 837, 408 N.W.2d 717 (1987). The present case is complicated, however, by the fact that neither the trial court nor the parties had the benefit of a working definition of indigency, in the context of a civil case, at the time of the GAL fees hearing. We recognize that the trial court found that Katrina and Mark were indigent when it ordered Douglas County to pay the GAL fees. However, at the fees hearing, Katrina testified that she earned a monthly income of $3,200 ($38,000 annually) and Mark presented evidence that his gross monthly income was $3,500 ($42,000 annually). Under ordinary circumstances, it would appear that both Katrina and Mark have adequate resources to pay the GAL fees without prejudicing, in a meaningful way, their financial ability to provide necessities of life for themselves and their children. Both parties, however, have argued that current obligations, including taxes, debts, and costs associated with health care, along with normal living expenses, have left them with too little disposable income to pay the GAL fees. The record is not adequate for meaningful appellate review on this matter, and in fairness to the parties and the trial court, the litigants were dealing with a standard that had not previously been defined by the Legislature or an appellate court. Therefore, under these circumstances, we cannot determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in its indigency finding, and we remand this matter to the district court for a new indigency determination under the standard set forth herein.