Court Opinion

ID: 9535573
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:50:58.416109+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:17.020274
License: Public Domain

Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the outcome the majority reaches, I *287must dissent on procedural grounds.
In deference to the fact that no question as to the validity of the poverty affidavit was raised and briefed by the parties, the majority does not comment on the State’s representation in its motion for dismissal that the poverty affidavit was “signed by” the appellant. In actuality, the affidavit was executed not by the appellant, but by her attorney.
As the majority notes, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-2301 (Reissue 1989) requires that the impoverished appellant, not her or his attorney, execute the affidavit which substitutes for the payment of fees and costs and the posting of security. Approximately a century and a third ago, Georgia established the principle that statutes such as § 25-2301 are to be strictly construed, and, thus, an affidavit of poverty executed by a party’s attorney does not suffice. Elder vs. Whitehead et al., 25 Ga. 262 (1858). Accord, Jackson v. Fincher, 128 Ga. App. 148, 195 S.E.2d 762 (1973); Cohen v. Hautcharow, 84 N.Y.S. 573 (1903). As stated in Vance v. Vance, 197 Miss. 332, 335, 20 So. 2d 825, 826 (1945), “[I]f a statute specifically prescribes who shall make a certain affidavit, it can be made by none other than the person specified, although there is nothing in the language of the statute to show that its designation was intended to be exclusive.”
The circumstances of this case demonstrate that there are sound reasons beyond the words of § 25-2301 for requiring that an appellant personally execute an affidavit which asserts poverty. The attorney’s affidavit recites that the appellant was not gainfully employed during the period he represented her, that she was now living in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, and that attempts to contact her concerning the affidavit were unsuccessful. On those meager and meaningless facts the attorney nonetheless ventured to swear that the appellant “is without sufficient funds to pay for the cost of this appeal.”
I can understand an attorney’s desire to do all that can legally be done to protect a client’s interests and to thereby protect himself or herself from a subsequent claim that he or she was derelict in his or her duty, but how could the attorney in this case know his client’s financial position at the time he executed the affidavit? The answer is that he cannot. He knew only what she *288told him her condition was when she was living in his area. By reciting that he could not reach his client to discuss the poverty affidavit with her, the attorney admitted that he did not know what her condition was at the time he took an oath on the matter. He had no basis for representing that she was then a pauper, and his representation therefore is not worthy of credence. The mere fact that the appellant left the local area suggests that something changed in her life. That change may well have had an effect on her financial position. Beyond that, we have no way of knowing that she wanted to appeal; she may well have accepted the result below as inevitable and elected to move on with her life.
Nor is it too much to ask one whose legal bills are being paid by the taxpayers to keep in touch with her or his attorney and to remain available to do whatever is necessary in furtherance of the litigation, if furthering the litigation is the client’s desire. It is only fitting and proper that, in addition to whatever civil or other criminal sanctions may result, an appellant proven to have falsely sworn to poverty be subject to the penalties for perjury.
Moreover, I am not at all certain that an attorney who executes an affidavit concerning a client’s financial condition does not violate the advocate-witness rule. See, State ex rel. NSBA v. Neumeister, ante p. 47, 449 N.W.2d 17 (1989); Porter v. Porter, 274 N.W.2d 235 (N.D. 1979).
For the foregoing reasons, I would dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Shanahan and Fahrnbruch, JJ., join in this dissent.