Cooling v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.
| Decision Date | 15 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 102627,ED 102627 |
| Citation | 491 S.W.3d 253 |
| Parties | Nathan T. Cooling, Respondent, v. Dept of Social Services, Family Support Division, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Siobahn Akers, P.O. Box 861, Saint Louis, Mo. 63188, for appellant.
Thomas E. Bauer, Susan Smith Frederick (Co–Counsel), 3176 Hampton Ave, Saint Louis, Mo. 63109, for respondent.
The State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division (the “Division”) appeals the judgment of the circuit court reversing the decision of the Director of the Department of Social Services (the “Director”). The Director denied Nathan T. Cooling's (“Cooling” or “Father”) application for attorney's fees after he prevailed in the underlying administrative agency actions. The circuit court awarded Cooling attorney's fees in the amount of $24,100, pursuant to Section 536.087, RSMo 2000.1 On appeal, the Division argues that Cooling is not eligible for the awarded attorney's fees because: (1) Cooling did not prevail in an adversary proceeding in a contested case where the Division was represented by counsel; (2) the Division was substantially justified in taking the underlying agency actions; and (3) Cooling failed to present competent and substantial evidence of special factors in Section 536.085 justifying the award. We reverse the Director's decision denying Cooling's application for attorney's fee, and reverse the circuit court's judgment as to the amount awarded and remand.
Tara Neumann (“Mother”) and Cooling married and had one child (“L”) together. They divorced in September 2000. The divorce decree ordered Cooling to pay $340 per month in child support directly to Mother. In 2009, Mother applied for public assistance from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (“TANF”) to help her provide for L and her two other children. As a requirement for participation in TANF, Mother filled out an application for child support services (the “CSS Application”). In the application, Mother stated she did not know if a court had ever ordered child support for L. Mother also stated Father never paid any child support. Mother signed the application, certifying the veracity of the information provided. Without verifying Mother's averments, the Division started paying Mother $342 per month in TANF in April 2009. In relation to the CSS Application, the Division opened a child support case to establish paternity of L and to obtain a court order for support. The Division requested that Mother provide copies of documents, including the marriage license and divorce decree for verification. Mother failed to do so. As a result, the Division terminated Mother's TANF benefits in September 2010 for non-cooperation. The Division did not further investigate Mother's statements in the CSS Application.
In October 2011, the Division sent Cooling a form letter to establish paternity of L. Cooling did not respond. The Division sent Cooling another form letter on December 28, 2011. Cooling called the Division in early January 2012, stating that his divorce judgment ordered him to pay child support and he recently gained physical custody of L.
The Division subsequently received a copy of the divorce judgment, confirming the existence of the child support order and the fact that Father was to pay Mother directly, not the Family Support Center or the court. However, the Division, still relying on Mother's statements the Division failed to substantiate, concluded Cooling owed $45,900 in child support arrears and had not made payments to the Family Support Payment Center or the court. The Division did not perform any further investigation into whether Cooling had actually made any support payments to Mother.
On February 8, 2012, the Division began enforcement by issuing a Notice of Consumer Report Agency Referral (the “CRA Referral Notice”), informing Cooling of its intention to report his arrearage. On February 21, 2012, Cooling again called the Division, stating that he had custody of L and did not owe any child support. Cooling, through retained counsel, filed a timely request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 454.470 and contested the Division's CRA Referral Notice. At the same time, Cooling furnished the Division with a copy of a written agreement (the “Agreement”) between Mother and Cooling, dated December 17, 2011. In the Agreement, Mother acknowledged full payment from Cooling of all child support obligations through December 17, 2011, after which Cooling took physical custody of L, thereby terminating Cooling's support obligation. The Division subsequently suspended the CRA Referral pending a hearing.
Based on the Agreement, the Division amended its support calculation, giving credit to Cooling for support payments made directly to Mother in the amount of $35,054. The Division, however, determined that Cooling still owed $5,066 to the State of Missouri (the “State”) under Mother's TANF assignment (the ). On March 19, 2012, while Cooling's hearing for the CRA Referral Notice was pending, the Division issued an Order to Withhold Income (the “OTW”) to URS Corporation, ordering it to withhold $100 of Cooling's income per month. As a result, the Division collected sums from Cooling's income. Through his counsel, Cooling requested an administrative hearing on the OTW. The hearing was scheduled for September 26, 2012.
On March 29, 2012, an administrative hearing was held on the CRA Referral Notice (the “CRA hearing”). Cooling was present and represented by counsel. Cooling testified he had paid all child support payments directly to Mother from the start of the child support order until the date of the Agreement. Mother was also present and confirmed Cooling's testimony. Mother also testified the TANF benefits she received were not for L but for two other children unrelated to Cooling. The Division's position was presented by a Child Support Specialist, an agency witness. The agency witness testified Mother received TANF from April 2009 through August 2010 and Cooling had not made any payments through the Family Support Payment Center, therefore Cooling owed TANF reimbursement for that period.
On May 19, 2012, the Hearing Officer determined that Cooling owed a total of $5,440 to the State of Missouri even though she found, “Father credibly testified that he did not know about the state aid” and “Mother ... agreed that she received the direct payments from Father.” The Hearing Officer reasoned that “Father has set forth no legal authority by which this administrative tribunal can relieve him of the responsibility to repay the TANF amounts owed to the State.” Two days later, the Division issued the CRA Referral Notice again.
On June 5, 2012, Cooling filed with the agency a “Motion to Modify Decision Entered May 19, 2012,” setting forth the legal authority as suggested by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer subsequently issued a decision, rescinding her prior determination of May 19, and concurrently sought a written response from the Division. After the Division failed to respond, the Hearing Officer concluded that Cooling did not owe any further money and entered an Amended Decision on September 18, 2012 (the “Amended Decision”). Subsequently, Cooling filed a motion to dismiss the OTW hearing in light of the Amended Decision. A week later, the OTW hearing was cancelled, the Division withdrew from the OTW action, and refunded Cooling the money the Division took as a result of the OTW. The Amended Decision was not appealed.
In October 2012, Cooling filed with the Division an application for attorney's fees pursuant to Section 536.087, as the prevailing party in the agency actions. An attorney representing the Division entered her appearance and filed responsive pleadings. In its Answer to Cooling's Application for Attorney's Fees, the Division admitted that Cooling was the prevailing party as defined by Section 536.085.1, but raised as an affirmative defense that the Division's position was substantially justified.
On December 4, 2012, an administrative hearing on Cooling's application for attorney's fees was held and both parties were represented by counsel. On January 31, 2013, the Director entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (the “Director's Order”), denying Cooling's application for attorney's fees. The Director reasoned that there was no agency proceeding because the Division was not represented by counsel. The Director added that the Division was substantially justified in its actions.
Cooling subsequently sought judicial review of the Director's Order. After briefing and argument, and additional testimony, the circuit court entered a judgment on September 23, 2013 (the “September Judgment”), finding that the administrative proceeding was contested and that the Division's actions were not substantially justified. The September Judgment awarded Cooling attorney's fees in the amount of $2,500. After post-trial motions from both parties, the circuit court modified the September Judgment on December 12, 2013, eliminating the dollar amount of the awarded fee, but leaving in place its finding that the Division was not substantially justified (the “December Judgment”). Both parties appealed the December Judgment. Finding the December Judgment was not final, this Court dismissed both appeals and remanded the case for entry of a final judgment. Cooling v. State of Missouri, Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, 446 S.W.3d 283 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014).
On remand, the circuit court took additional evidence and entered a judgment on January 5, 2015, awarding Cooling attorney's fees in the amount of $24,100 (the “January Judgment”). The January Judgment provided that the administrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Hawley v. City of St. Louis
...purpose. Id. And most important here, construction of statutes should avoid unreasonable or absurd results. Cooling v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 491 S.W.3d 253, 261 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing Murray v. Mo. Highway and Transp. Comm'n 37 S.W.3d 228, 233 (Mo. banc 2001) ). When the literal sense......
-
Flower Valley, LLC v. Zimmerman
...and 28 U.S.C. section 2412. See Carpenter v. State Bd. of Nursing , 508 S.W.3d 110, 115 (Mo. banc 2016) ; Cooling v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 491 S.W.3d 253, 261 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). ...
-
Guthrie v. Mo. Dep't of Labor & Indus. Relations
...a special factor. Sprenger v. Mo. Dep't of Pub. Safety , 340 S.W.3d 109, 112 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010). See also Cooling v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 491 S.W.3d 253, 265 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016). "Such a ‘market rate’ consideration, in and of itself, does not constitute a special factor justifying enha......
-
M.F. v. Stringer
...agency behavior by relieving such parties of the fear of incurring large litigation expenses. Cooling v. Dept. of Social Services, 491 S.W.3d 253, 261-62 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (citing United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land , 794 F.2d 1313, 1314–15 (8th Cir. 1986) ). The intent of both the E......
-
Section 11.16B Fees Possible in Other IV-D Cases (New Section)
...for cases other than non-TANF establishment and modification cases. Cooling v. Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, 491 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016), confirms that FSD cannot insulate itself by refusing to utilize counsel and thus avoid the definition of “agency procee......