Court Opinion

ID: 9642766
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 18:08:32.95163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:52.193969
License: Public Domain

KENNETH M. ROMINES, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. I find no authority by constitution, by statute, by rule or by “inherent authority” to take John’s money and give it to Tammy. There is no factual basis in this record to accomplish this result, and thus, the result is unprincipled.
This case reflects an all too common phenomenon in the domestic area — lack of civility. Simply, neither counsel would extend one to the other even modest professional courtesy. Counsel for Appellant gave Respondent’s counsel more than thirty days notice of client unavailability; and gave the commissioner twenty-nine days notice by a formal filing — which motion was never ruled by the commissioner.
My review finds no evidence that the $1,500 fee was reasonable, necessary, or justified. The record is silent as to any time-spent basis for this fee — no bill, no affidavit, not even the ever useful “counsel how much time do you have in this today?” The commissioner’s action was arbitrary and capricious, to affirm is thus arbitrary and capricious.
Appellant's counsel complained loudly and long, both below and here, as to the arbitrary nature of the action. We have an obligation, and jurisdiction, to resolve this complaint.
There being no constitutional, statutory, nor rule applied by the commissioner, the majority relies on case authority. The two cases cited are factually inappropriate. Foster v. Kohm, 661 S.W.2d 628 (Mo.App. E.D.1983) dealt with discovery issues and Rule 62.01. McPherson v. U.S. Physicians Mutual Risk Retention Group, 99 S.W.3d 462 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) dealt with audits and consequent fees ordered in a receivership. In neither case were attorney’s fees allowed.
This is not contempt, a receivership, a discovery violation, nor a motion to set aside a default judgment. Mouthing “sanctions” is not a panacea for evidence. This case should be reversed.