Court Opinion

ID: 9541165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:23:09.713165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:37.744914
License: Public Domain

Johnson, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — The issues presented in this case involve the resolution of whether collateral estoppel bars the lawsuit over the legal fees and whether there is guardian ad litem immunity. I agree with the majority’s disposition of those issues.
*334In dicta, the majority goes on to review, under "attorney fees”, an issue not presented at the trial court, the Court of Appeals, or here. This discussion creates and resolves issues which are not argued, briefed, nor properly before us. I do not agree we should, on the limited summary judgment record before us, review the propriety of the attorney fees. The resolution of that issue properly should be addressed by the parties at trial on remand.
The majority’s discussion is obiter dictum and, as such, is not helpful nor binding on the trial court.
Brachtenbach and Smith, JJ., concur with Johnson, J.
Reconsideration denied November 2, 1994.