Opinion ID: 2623313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Superior Court Erred in Dismissing Baker's Appeal for Failure to Prosecute.

Text: The superior court dismissed Baker's appeal for failure to prosecute under Appellate Rule 511.5 because he did not prepay UAF for the costs of preparing the administrative transcript and record for appeal, as required by Appellate Rule 604(b)(1)(B)(iv). The question before us is whether the superior court should have accommodated Baker's requests for relief from this prepayment requirement. We emphasize that this case does not require us to determine whether Baker should be absolved of his duty to pay for preparing the record and transcript, just whether he must pay in advance.
Baker contends that the superior court erred by not relieving him of the prepayment requirement when he made a factual showing of indigence. But Appellate Rule 604(b)(1)(B)(iv) does not provide a standard or test for the superior court to apply when it considers motions for hardship relief; instead, it establishes that the appellant shall pay transcript and file preparation costs and may be required to make advance payment: In the absence of an agreement between the parties or an order of the court to the contrary, all reasonable costs incurred in connection with preparing the transcript and the court's copy of the agency file shall be borne by the appellant. The preparing agency may require advance payment of the costs as reasonably estimated by the agency. [6] Nothing in this rule suggests that a court's discretion to relax the rule's advance payment requirement hinges on a strict showing of indigence. The rule recognizes general judicial authority to enter an order to the contrary of the usual advance payment arrangement, and places no restrictions on the court's power to exercise that authority. This vests the superior court with broad discretion to grant relief upon a showing of any good reason to avoid rigidly enforcing the advance payment requirement. While indigence is certainly sufficient for relief, it is not in all cases necessary.
Appellate Rule 604(b)(1)(B)(iv) does not mention indigence, or any other substantive factor, in granting discretion to the superior court to issue an order relieving an appellant from the prepayment requirement. But we have recently reaffirmed the principle that the size of a party's bank account [7] should not foreclose [that] party's opportunity to be heard. [8] Accordingly, we interpret Rule 604(b)(1)(B)(iv) to allow a superior court to relieve the appellant of the prepayment requirement for good cause. [9] Good cause in this context consists of a factual showing by the appellant of a substantial hardship. We now turn to the specific circumstances of Baker's case.
Based on our interpretation of Rule 604(b)(1)(B)(iv), we conclude that Baker has shown the existence of substantial hardship that is sufficient to support a grant of relief from prepayment. First, Baker was illegally terminated. No one now disputes the illegality of UAF's conduct that instigated these proceedings. Second, UAF's conduct in the first administrative appeal caused a substantial increase in Baker's litigation expenses. UAF failed to follow its own rules on record preparation, resulting in the superior court's rejection of UAF's record in its entirety and the substitution of a record prepared by Baker and his attorney at substantial additional expense to Baker. Third, Baker's case cost him more in attorney's fees (over $50,000) than he was paid in damages ($48,464). [10] Fourth, by the time Baker's second administrative appeal was underway, he had incurred a debt that precluded his ability to secure loans to cover his expenses. Also, his expenses often exceeded his income. These expenses were not frivolous: they were incurred, for the most part, in moving his family from Fairbanks to Anchorage to obtain employment following his illegal termination in Fairbanks and to cover the costs of this litigation. And fifth, Baker was a University of Alaska employee. Given the relationship between the parties in this case, it is reasonable to conclude that had the court relieved Baker of the prepayment requirement, UAF was in a position to protect itself in terms of recovering the costs of record preparation in the event UAF prevailed in the dispute. These circumstances establish good cause to grant Baker relief. His affidavit showing inability to raise the $3,500 necessary to pre-pay the record preparation costs, the submission of a financial statement consistent with that affidavit, and the failure of UAF to refute the existence of substantial hardship lead to our conclusion today that relief from prepayment should have been granted. The superior court focused only on Baker's income and did not consider other relevant factors in making its determination. Consideration of all relevant factors leads us to conclude that Baker showed that substantial financial hardship precluded his pre-payment of record preparation costs, and that the university did not rebut that showing. UAF argues that our holding in Jordan v. Jordan [11] controls in this case. But UAF misconstrues the facts and holding of Jordan. Unlike the appellant in Jordan, Baker did not ask that the state pay for an attorney or other litigation costs. Baker merely sought relief from the requirement that he prepay record preparation costs. In Jordan, we concluded that the appellant was not indigent because the Jordans had $200,000 to $300,000 in marital assets and that sufficient assets existed for [him] to pay for an attorney without encumbering the family home. [12] By contrast, the Baker family had a greater amount of debt than assets, and no non-essential assets that could be encumbered or liquidated to pay litigation costs. More importantly, Baker appears to have had necessary monthly expenses that were at least equal to, and at times exceeded, his family's monthly income. Finally, Baker was unable to secure private lines of credit. These facts distinguish Baker's situation from the facts underlying our holding in Jordan. Accordingly, Jordan does not control Baker's request for hardship relief. The superior court failed to consider indicators of substantial hardship other than Baker's salary. Record evidence shows that Baker faced substantial financial hardship. The superior court erred in finding he was not entitled to relief from the requirement that record preparation costs be prepaid. [13]
The superior court improperly denied Baker relief from the administrative record preparation prepayment requirement of Appellate Rule 604(b)(1)(B)(iv), which led to the dismissal of Baker's appeal without addressing the merits. Because the superior court erred in this regard, we REVERSE and REMAND for proceedings on the merits.