Court Opinion

ID: 9734370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:33:03.892071+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.234653
License: Public Domain

Hannon, Judge,
dissenting.
I disagree with my colleagues and must respectfully dissent for the following reasons:
I do not believe the State is a party to this action, but if it is viewed as a party, I would analyze the case in this manner. In deciding Millard v. Hyplains Dressed Beef, 237 Neb. 907, 915, 468 N.W.2d 124, 130 (1991), the Supreme Court stated, “[Sanctions should not be imposed except in the clearest cases.” See First Nat. Bank v. Chadron Energy Corp., 236 Neb. 199, 459 N.W.2d 736 (1990). First Nat. Bank cited Shanks v. Johnson Abstract & Title, 225 Neb. 649, 407 N.W.2d 743 (1987), and said, “This court has adopted the position that all doubts as to whether an action is frivolous should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and sanctions should not be imposed except in the clearest cases.” First Nat. Bank, 236 Neb. at 201, 459 N.W.2d at 739. I agree with the definition of frivolous stated by the majority as “a legal position wholly without merit, that is, without rational argument based on law and evidence to *91support a litigant’s position in the lawsuit.” Lutheran Medical Center v. City of Omaha, 229 Neb. 802, 814, 429 N.W.2d 347, 354 (1988). Or stated in another way, “[t]he term ‘frivolous,’ as used in [§ 25-824(2)], ‘connotes an improper motive or a legal position wholly without merit.’ ” Peterson v. Don Peterson & Assoc. Ins. Agency, 234 Neb. 651, 658, 452 N.W.2d 517, 522 (1990).
The action was commenced by the York County Attorney on August 22,1989. At that time, the blood had been drawn for the blood test, but the results were not available and did not become available until September 12, 1989. The caseworker may have had reasons for not reposing complete confidence in the allegations of Kristi Mooney, but that caseworker would be in no different position than most caseworkers handling such matters and many attorneys starting or defending lawsuits that must rely upon the veracity of persons whose past conduct would lead a reasonable person to question their reliability. Neither the Department of Social Services (DSS) nor the county attorney should be required to judge the veracity of the mother to avoid being found to be frivolous.
It may seem that the filing of the action was done too quickly, when the blood test would have resolved the matter. In recent times, paternity suits such as this one are all too common. Many alleged fathers delay the proceedings because they realize they do not pay child support until the judgment determining paternity is entered. The public officials charged with attempting to get fathers to support their children realize that the alleged fathers have a considerable motive to delay and that they do delay. Public officials charged with attempting to collect child support can fight this delay by quickly filing paternity actions and bringing them to trial as soon as possible. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-512.01 (Reissue 1988) provides the county shall “immediately take action against the nonsupporting parent.” The county attorney in this case followed the statute, just as other conscientious county attorneys do, and should do. At the time the action was filed, all those involved would have realized the action could quickly be dismissed if the paternity test proved the respondent was not the father. I also find the fee of $535 ludicrously high to obtain a dismissal, when a blood test *92showing lack of paternity would have been available before answer day. Under the conditions of the real situation, the evidence does not establish that the State was acting with improper motives or that its legal position was wholly without merit, particularly if all doubt is resolved in favor of the State, as we are required to do.
There is a separate reason why I cannot accept the majority’s position. In the recent case State on behalf of Garcia v. Garcia, 238 Neb. 455, 471 N.W.2d 388 (1991), a district court taxed the attorney fees of a special prosecutor appointed by the court in a paternity action against the Department of Social Services. On its own motion, the court reversed this allowance under the plain error doctrine, on the basis that such fees could not be taxed against the State without the Legislature specifically providing for it. In making that decision, the Supreme Court said:
In this case the district court entered judgment for the special prosecutor’s fees against DSS. The judgment was entered as a result of the State’s prosecution of Robert Garcia for child support payments and is the equivalent of a suit against the State. We do not find any statute in which the Legislature has permitted a judgment for attorney fees to be entered against the State in an action for child support payments. In our review of articles 1,2, 5, 7, 9, and 14 of chapter 43 of the Nebraska statutes, we note that DSS bears the cost of various services performed for the protection of juveniles in this state. See, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-258(4) and 43-284.02 (Reissue 1988).
The various costs borne by DSS do not include payment of fees incurred by a special prosecutor appointed by the court in a child support action. The Legislature has made no provision for payment of attorney fees by DSS in child support actions, and thus any judgment against the State for these fees violates state sovereignty.
(Emphasis supplied.) Gaccia, 238 Neb. at 459, 471 N.W.2d at 391. I am of the opinion that the above authority prevents a district court from awarding attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1412 (Reissue 1988).
Furthermore, I do not believe the State of Nebraska could be *93a party to a paternity suit when this action was commenced, in 1989. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1411 (Reissue 1988) provides that a civil proceeding to establish paternity may be instituted by the mother, the father, the guardian, or the next friend of the child. Effective September 6, 1991, § 43-1411 was amended to allow the State to bring such actions. The title to this case is State of Nebraska ex rel. Killian K. Mooney, Petitioner, v. Scott I. Duer, Respondent. Insofar as I can ascertain, this style has proper application only to mandamus actions, City of Crawford v. Darrow, 87 Neb. 494, 127 N.W. 891 (1910), and in quo warranto actions, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21, 134 (Reissue 1989). The term “ex rel.,” or ex relatione, is defined as “[l]egal proceedings which are instituted by the attorney general (or other proper person) in the name and behalf of the state, but on the information and at the instigation of an individual who has a private interest in the matter____” Black’s Law Dictionary 582 (6th ed. 1990). It is worth noting that in State on behalf of Garcia v. Garcia, supra, the title to the case uses what I regard as a more proper style. I do not believe the State can be a party to a paternity action — at least, it could not be before September 6, 1991 — and therefore we cannot assume the Legislature intended to allow attorney fees to be taxed under § 43-1412 when that section was last amended, in 1986. See § 43-1412 (Reissue 1988). I realize that the State did in fact bring paternity actions under the ex rel. designation, and indeed, DSS and the county attorneys were required to do so under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 43-512.01 through 43-512.03 (Reissue 1988) at least since 1987 and probably before, but they were not authorized to do so under article 14 of chapter 43 of the Nebraska statutes. I point out these matters because I believe they are relevant to an understanding of why I believe the Legislature did not intend to require the State to pay attorney fees.
For the above reasons, I would reverse the decision of the district court and return the matter with direction to dismiss the application for attorney fees.