Court Opinion

ID: 9770289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:57:39.171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:16.386642
License: Public Domain

SNYDER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, believing that State ex rel. Cain v. Mitchell, 543 S.W.2d 785 (Mo.banc 1976), and other cases are controlling and require a finding by this court that attorney fees may not be taxed as costs absent express statutory authority or agreement of the parties. State ex rel. Cain v. Mitchell, supra, at 786. There is no express statutory authorization in § 211.462, RSMo 1978, and no agreement of the parties in the case at bar.
In State ex rel. Cain attorneys who had been appointed at various times to represent indigent juveniles attempted to have their fees taxed as court costs. The supreme court refused to issue a writ of mandamus which would compel the Jackson County director of revenue to pay the attorney fees because the trial court had no authority to tax the attorney fees as court costs, saying: “Even more compelling are holdings in this state that the term ‘costs’ as used in the statute does not include attorneys’ fees, with certain exceptions.” State ex rel. Cain v. Mitchell, supra at 786. The exceptions which are listed in Johnson v. United Railways Co., 247 Mo. 326, 152 S.W. 362, 366 (1912) do not apply here.
The Missouri Supreme Court held in an even more recent case that the expense of psychiatric examinations of juveniles could not be taxed as costs absent specific statutory authorization. State v. D. S., 606 S.W.2d 653, 654 (Mo.banc 1980). The court ruled in State v. D. S., supra, that recovery and allowance of costs rests entirely on statutory provisions and quotes McClue v. Epsten, 492 S.W.2d 97, 98[1] (Mo.App.1973): “ ‘The legal principle controlling here is that no item is taxable as costs unless specifically so provided by statute.’ ”
The majority opinion relies primarily on Labor’s Educational & Political Club-Independent v. Danforth, 561 S.W.2d 339, 350 (Mo.banc 1977), but Danforth involved a declaratory judgment action and the related statute, § 527.100, RSMo 1969. Further, the award of attorney fees was denied. Still further, the statement in the opinion *17that “ ‘[cjosts’ has been interpreted to include attorney fees” was only dicta and based on an opinion in a declaratory judgment action brought to interpret a will and testamentary trust. Bernheimer v. First National Bank of Kansas City, 359 Mo. 1119, 225 S.W.2d 745, 755 (banc 1949). Thus, Danforth is indeed only a slender reed of support for the majority’s conclusion.
Because of the law as set forth in the cited opinions, I must disagree with the majority. I would reverse and remand with instructions to retax the costs by deleting the fees of court appointed counsel.