Gambrel v. Croushore ex rel. Villarreal

Decision Date25 June 2021
Docket NumberNO. 2020-CA-0881-MR,2020-CA-0881-MR
PartiesG. KEITH GAMBREL AND THE GAMBREL FIRM, LLC APPELLANTS v. PAUL CROUSHORE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS NEXT FRIEND OF EACH OF SOPHIA VILLARREAL, A MINOR AND SPENCER VILLARREAL, A MINOR APPELLEE
CourtKentucky Court of Appeals

G. KEITH GAMBREL AND THE GAMBREL FIRM, LLC APPELLANTS
v.
PAUL CROUSHORE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS NEXT FRIEND OF
EACH OF SOPHIA VILLARREAL, A MINOR AND SPENCER VILLARREAL, A MINOR1 APPELLEE

NO. 2020-CA-0881-MR

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

JUNE 25, 2021


TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL FROM CAMPBELL CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JULIE REINHARDT WARD, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 19-CI-00927

OPINION
REVERSING AND REMANDING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: ACREE, DIXON, AND McNEILL, JUDGES.

ACREE, JUDGE: G. Keith Gambrel appeals the Campbell Circuit Court's June 18, 2020 order denying his motion to dismiss a legal malpractice claim against

Page 2

him. His motion to dismiss was based on his claim of quasi-judicial immunity for actions he took as a court-appointed guardian ad litem ("GAL"). Upon careful consideration, we conclude Gambrel was cloaked with absolute quasi-judicial immunity and reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the action.

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURE

The genesis of this matter is a custody dispute between Alexandra Lawson ("Mother") and her former husband, Spencer Villarreal ("Father") relative to their two minor children. The family resided in Indiana when a court of that state entered the parties' divorce decree, including the custody determination.2 Subsequent to the divorce, the parties independently relocated with their children to Campbell County, Kentucky.

In May 2014, Mother registered the Indiana decree and custody determination with the Campbell Circuit Court and simultaneously sought an order authorizing the relocation of the children to Mississippi. Father opposed the motion. Pursuant to FCRPP3 6(2)(e), the court appointed Gambrel as GAL of the two children. The circuit court granted Mother's motion and authorized the relocation.

Page 3

In 2018, Father moved to modify the custody agreement. He asked the court to re-designate him as the children's primary custodial parent and for return of the children to Campbell County; he alleged Mother failed to act in good faith in co-parenting the children. Again, Gambrel served as the court-appointed GAL. Gambrel argued that re-designating Father as the primary residential custodian and relocating the children to Campbell County was in the children's best interests. (Trial Record "T.R." at 76). In exercising his statutory duty, Gambrel filed motions and introduced evidence supporting that position. (T.R. at 263). He noted that neither child voiced a preference between their parents as primary residential custodian. (T.R. at 76). In addition, he presented evidence that Mother had not made good decisions regarding the son's education and that the schools in Campbell County would better accommodate his educational needs.4 The circuit court granted Father's motion.

Mother filed emergency motions for reinstatement as the children's primary residential parent alleging Gambrel committed malpractice. She sought Gambrel's removal as GAL. The motions were denied. (T.R. at 146-47).

Paul Croushore, in his capacity as next friend of the Villarreal children, filed this action against Gambrel claiming he committed legal negligence

Page 4

in the way he performed his duties as GAL.5 In response, Gambrel filed a motion pursuant to CR6 12.02(f) to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, asserting he was cloaked with absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The circuit court denied the motion. "[A]n order denying a substantial claim of absolute immunity is immediately appealable even in the absence of a final judgment." Maggard v. Kinney, 576 S.W.3d 559, 564 (Ky. 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Gambrel then brought this appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

"[A] court should not grant . . . a motion [to dismiss for failure to state a claim] 'unless it appears the pleading party would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts which could be proved . . . .'" Fox v. Grayson, 317 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Ky. 2010) (quoting Pari-Mutuel Clerks' Union of Kentucky, Local 541, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Kentucky Jockey Club, 551 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Ky. 1977)). Such a motion "admits as true the material facts of the complaint." Id. (quoting Upchurch

Page 5

v. Clinton County, 330 S.W.2d 428, 429-30 (Ky. 1959)). Immunity is purely a question of law and our review is de novo. Lawrence v. Bingham, Greenebaum, Doll, L.L.P., 567 S.W.3d 133, 137 (Ky. 2018), reh'g denied (Mar. 14, 2019).

ANALYSIS

This case presents an issue of first impression in Kentucky: whether court-appointed guardians ad litem enjoy absolute quasi-judicial immunity from legal malpractice claims arising from their role in child custody proceedings. Based on applicable Kentucky law and public policy, we conclude they do.

"Absolute immunity against suits for money damages is 'well established' for judges, and such immunity has also been extended to non-judicial officers performing 'quasi-judicial' duties." Sangster v. Kentucky Bd. of Med. Licensure, 454 S.W.3d 854, 858 (Ky. App. 2014) (citations omitted). Kentucky extends quasi-judicial immunity "to those persons performing tasks so integral or intertwined with the judicial process that these persons are considered an arm of the judicial officer who is immune." Id.; see also Stone v. Glass, 35 S.W.3d 827, 829 (Ky. App. 2000). To determine quasi-judicial immunity, we apply a "functional approach" and "'look[ ] to' the nature of the function performed, not the identity of the actor who performed it." Sangster, 454 S.W.3d at 858-59 (citation omitted). This doctrine applies to court officers when working within the scope of the court's appointment. See Horn by Horn v. Commonwealth, 916

Page 6

S.W.2d 173, 176 (Ky. 1995) ("[Q]uasi-judicial immunity attaches to the CDW when working within her capacity as a court designated worker.").

The circuit court, in denying Gambrel his claimed immunity, relied on our Supreme Court's decision in Morgan v. Getter, 441...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT