Haney v. State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 79470,79470 |
| Citation | 850 P.2d 1087,1993 OK 41 |
| Parties | Robin HANEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant-Petitioner. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Certiorari to Review Certified Interlocutory Order from District Court of Okmulgee County, State of Oklahoma, John Maley, Trial Judge.
District Attorney entered into an agreement with the Oklahoma Department of Human Services to enforce and collect child support obligations. Custodial parent applied to DHS for assistance in collecting child support payments from her former husband. Custodial parent alleged that the district attorney acted negligently by failing to perfect, on her behalf, a court-ordered lien against a claim her former spouse had pending in another state. Accordingly, custodial parent brought suit for professional negligence against the State of Oklahoma. Held: A district attorney, pursuant to a contract with the Department of Human Services cannot form an attorney-client relationship with a custodial parent who applies for collection of child support.
Certiorari Previously Granted; Trial Court Reversed; Remanded with Directions to Dismiss.
Susan B. Loving, Atty. Gen., W. Craig Sutter, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
Carol Seacat, Okmulgee, for respondent.
The question we answer in this case is whether an attorney-client relationship arises between a district attorney and a custodial parent when the district attorney attempts to collect child support obligations from a non-custodial parent, pursuant to a contract between the district attorney and the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS). We answer in the negative.
Robin Haney (Haney) applied to DHS for collection of child support obligations from her former husband. The District Attorney for the County of Okmulgee (District Attorney), pursuant to a contract with DHS, prosecuted the child support action in case No. JFD-85-229, District Court of Okmulgee County, State of Oklahoma. 1 The district court granted Haney a lien against a claim her former husband had pending in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. District Attorney allegedly did not perfect the lien, and when the proceeds were distributed upon settlement of the claim, Haney was not paid.
Haney brought suit against the State of Oklahoma for the professional negligence of District Attorney under the Governmental Tort Claims Act, 51 O.S.1991, § 151 et seq. The State moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 2 The State contended Haney had no valid claim because the requisite attorney-client relationship did not exist between a district attorney and a custodial parent who applies for aid in securing child support obligations through DHS. The trial court refused to dismiss, finding an attorney-client relationship is established between district attorneys who enter into
agreements with DHS to collect child support obligations and custodial parents who apply for child support enforcement assistance. Upon the State's petition for immediate interlocutory appeal, we granted certiorari. 3
In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, we are guided by the general rule a petition should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief. 4 One of the requisite elements of a legal malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship. 5 We have determined that, under any set of facts, no attorney-client relationship formed between the District Attorney and Haney, as custodial parent.
The resolution of this case requires a construction of various statutes. The primary goal of statutory construction is to ascertain and follow the intention of the Legislature. 6 In construing statutes, relevant provisions must be considered together, whenever possible, to give force and effect to each. 7 Further, the cardinal rule is to begin with consideration of the language used. 8 With these rules in mind we turn to a discussion of whether the statutory framework which gave rise to this action permitted the formation of an attorney-client relationship between District Attorney and Haney.
In 1974, Congress added Title IV, Part D to the Social Security Act through Pub.L. No. 93-647, 88 Stat. 2351 (). The IV-D amendment established a Child Support Enforcement Program for, among other things, "[T]he purpose of enforcing the support obligations owed by absent parents to their children...." 9 The Act requires each state to develop and implement a plan, subject to federal approval, for delivery of child support program services in order to qualify for federal funds in providing those services. 10
The Oklahoma Legislature responded by adopting several statutes to comply with the federal act. 11 The child support program in Oklahoma is administered by DHS. 56 O.S.Supp.1982, § 237(A) provides in pertinent part:
The Department of Human Services ... as the single state agency designated to administer a statewide plan for child support, is authorized in accordance with Title IV, Part D, of the Federal Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C., sec. 651 et seq. to provide child support collection ... to enable it to participate in programs established by federal law.
DHS is allowed to enter into agreements with district attorneys for the enforcement and collection of child support obligations. 12 In the present case, District Attorney contracted with DHS to collect and enforce child support obligations. District Attorney prosecuted the matter to enforce the child support obligation of Haney's former husband. The question raised is whether such an arrangement gives rise to an attorney-client relationship.
The Title IV-D program establishes child support and enforcement of court ordered child support orders for children receiving aid to families with dependent children (AFDC), and for any other child whose custodian applies for services. 13 Likewise, 56 O.S.Supp.1985, § 240.5 provides:
Those persons not receiving aid to families with dependent children shall be given equal access to the services provided by [DHS] through its statewide plan for child support authorized by the federal Social Security Act.
Further, 56 O.S.Supp.1987, § 237(D) affirms this duty by stating in pertinent part:
The [DHS] may, when support rights have been assigned to it or upon proper application by an individual not receiving aid to families with dependent children, establish medical support or child support, enforce orders for medical support and any support, and make collection and distribution of child support monies.... A reasonable fee and costs may be assessed for services to individuals not receiving aid to families with dependent children under rules and regulations adopted by [DHS].
Thus, the statutory scheme enacted by the Legislature allows both recipients and non-recipients of AFDC to apply for child support enforcement collection assistance.
42 U.S.C. § 656(a)(1) provides, "[t]he support rights assigned to the State ... shall constitute an obligation owed to such State by the individual responsible for providing support." In Oklahoma, AFDC recipients must assign support rights to the state, and the state collects the support from the obligor. 56 O.S.Supp.1987, § 237(C)(1) provides in pertinent part:
An Applicant for or recipient of aid to families with dependent children, hereinafter referred to as "recipient", shall be required to assign to [DHS] any rights of or support from any other person which the recipient may have in his or her own behalf or for a child for whom the recipient is applying for or receiving assistance....
In interpreting statutes implementing Title IV, Part D, other jurisdictions have maintained district attorneys represent the interests of the County or State when they bring suit on behalf of recipients of AFDC. 14 The reasoning in those cases is that because the AFDC recipient assigns his right to support to the state, the support is collected on behalf of the state as assignee and not on behalf of the recipient. 15 Consequently, the State rather than the AFDC recipient is the "client" of the district attorney. 16 However, apparently no court has squarely answered the question of whether a non-AFDC recipient is the client of the district attorney.
In our view, three reasons indicate the Legislature intended our statutory scheme to provide that district attorneys who enforce and collect child support obligations represent the State rather than the individual making application, regardless of whether such individual was an AFDC recipient. These are 1) although the statutory scheme as it existed when this matter arose did not expressly identify the State, rather than the custodial parent, as the client and the scheme is subject to some doubt, one fair construction is that the State was intended to be the client; 2) the Legislature recently promulgated a new provision which we believe was meant to clarify previous intent and clear up any ambiguity in the area; and 3) the inherent potential for conflicts of interest between the district attorney and the private custodial parent should a determination be made the parent was the client, rather than the State.
56 O.S.Supp.1987, § 237(C)(3) provides in pertinent part, "[i]f an assignment has been made pursuant to this section or a proper application made by an individual not receiving aid to families with dependent children, support payments shall be made to [DHS]". (emphasis added). Further, all support payments made to DHS, regardless of whether they are on behalf of recipients of AFDC, are deposited in the Child Support Escrow Account. 17 Once received, DHS must disburse the payments according to federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nation v. State Farm Ins. Co.
....... 17 Beavin v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety, 662 P.2d 299 (Okla.1983). . 18 Relevant provisions of statutes relating to the same subject matter should be considered together whenever possible to ascertain legislative intent. Haney v. State, 850 P.2d 1087 (Okla.1993); Naylor v. Petuskey, 834 P.2d 439 (Okla.1992). . In Equity Mutual Ins. Co., 747 P.2d at 952, we considered § 7-324, which requires liability coverage within the United States and Canada, in holding a 200-mile radius limitation clause contrary to legislative ......
-
Ledbetter v. Howard
...¶ 8, 37 P.3d 882;McSorley v. Hertz Corp., 1994 OK 120, ¶ 6, 885 P.2d 1343;Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1992 OK 61, ¶ 8, 832 P.2d 834. 13.Haney v. State, 1993 OK 41, ¶ 5, 850 P.2d 1087;Public Serv. Co. of Oklahoma v. State ex rel. Corp. Comm'n, 1992 OK 153, ¶ 8, 842 P.2d 750. 14.Minie v......
-
Smith v. City of Stillwater & the Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs for Payne Cnty.
...¶ 8, 37 P.3d 882; McSorley v. Hertz Corp., 1994 OK 120, ¶ 6, 885 P.2d 1343; Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1992 OK 61, ¶ 8, 832 P.2d 834. 5.Haney v. State, 1993 OK 41, ¶ 5, 850 P.2d 1087; Public Serv. Co. of Oklahoma v. State ex rel. Corp. Comm'n, 1992 OK 153, ¶ 8, 842 P.2d 750. 6.Minie ......
-
Howard v. Nitro-Lift Techs. L.L.C., Case Number: 109003
...882; McSorley v. Hertz Corp., 1994 OK 120, ¶6, 885 P.2d 1343; Oglesby v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 1992 OK 61, ¶8, 832 P.2d 834. 29. Haney v. State, 1993 OK 41, ¶5, 850 P.2d 1087; Public Serv. Co. of Oklahoma v. State ex rel. Corp. Comm'n, 1992 OK 153, ¶8, 842 P.2d 750. 30. Minie v. Hudson, se......