Court Opinion

ID: 9795562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:31:31.192172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:30:18.094696
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Grant Baker filed this administrative appeal on August 11, 1997. On August 14, 1997, he was notified that he would be liable for record preparation costs and that the University could require the prepayment of the costs. The costs amounted to some $3,500. Some weeks later he received a lump sum settlement of approximately $48,000 from the University. This was in addition to his regular annual salary of more than $50,000.
Baker's obligation to prepay record preparation costs was actively litigated. Baker's counsel filed many pleadings on this subject and the superior court made three separate rulings-on May 20, June 23, and September 15, 1998, all affirming that Baker had the obligation to prepay record preparation costs. After his attorney withdrew in October of 1998, Baker made still another motion seeking waiver of his prepayment obligation. This was denied on December 1, 1998. Finally, on March 17, 1999, the superior court entered an order giving Baker ten days more to prepay the costs. This order warned Baker that if the costs were not paid by then an order of dismissal would be entered. Baker did not pay the costs and on April 21, 1999, the court dismissed the appeal in a five-page order explaining the history of this case.
In my opinion the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to relieve Baker of his obligation to prepay costs. The record shows that Baker had adequate income to prepay $3,500 in record preparation costs. He received income of more than $120,000 during the pendency of his appeal in the superior court. Further, he had adequate time to budget for the payment of the costs. More than eighteen months elapsed from the time he was first notified of his obligation to pay until the appeal was dismissed. His nonpayment seems to have resulted from choices he made that were not spurred by strict economic necessity. He decided to pay to litigate whether he had an obligation to prepay, rather than simply to prepay. And he decided to use the $48,000 lump sum which he received during the pendency of the appeal to pay counsel and reduce the debt on his credit cards.1 Both Baker and his attor*445ney knew that he would have to prepay record preparation costs and he could easily have set aside funds for this purpose from the lump sum payment.
One measure of the substantial financial hardship which will entitle a litigant to relief because of inability to pay the normal costs of litigation is contained in Criminal Rule 39.1. Defendants accused of crime are eligible for court-appointed counsel if their total financial resources are not sufficient to pay for counsel after "allowable household expenses" are deducted.2 Courts are authorized to assume that "allowable household expenses" are approximately equal to the adjusted federal poverty guidelines for the defendant's household.3 For a family of five-Baker's family size-living in Anchorage, this figure is $24,400.4 Baker has annual financial resources far exceeding this amount. And Baker is pursuing a civil action for his personal financial benefit. It is hard to see why he should be entitled to a more relaxed standard of financial hardship than those accused of crime.
For the above reasons, I would hold that the superior court did not abuse its disceretion in declining to relieve Baker of his obligation to pay in advance for the preparation of the administrative record.

. The record does not reveal how the $48,000 was allocated as between attorney's fees and costs and credit card debt. But in March of *4451998, after the $48,000 payment had been spent, Baker filed an affidavit indicating that total attorney's fees and costs incurred were approximately $50,000, and of this sum about $15,000 remained unpaid. This indicates that no more than $35,000 of the $48,000 was paid to Baker's attorney, and that at least $13,000 was available to meet other obligations.

. See Alaska R.Crim. P. 39.1(b)(1).

. See Alaska R.Crim. P. 39.1(h)(2).

. 'See Admin. Bulletin 65.