Praggastis v. Clackamas County
Decision Date | 29 March 1988 |
Parties | Kay PRAGGASTIS, Petitioner on review, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent on review. CC 84-3-107; CA A41362; SC S34531. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Miles A. Ward, Asst. County Counsel, Oregon City, argued the cause and filed a response to the petition for respondent on review.
The question we address is whether a county will be protected by judicial immunity Plaintiff alleged that: "Defendant, acting through its agents and employees in the course and scope of their business, entered the decree Dissolving Marriage, but failed to docket the judgment," resulting in financial loss to the plaintiff. The trial court directed a verdict for defendant on the grounds that "[t]he 'Decree Dissolving Marriage' * * * did not constitute a Judgment" and that "Defendant is not liable to plaintiff for damages since all the actions taken by defendant's employees were solely at the direction and instruction of Circuit Court judges, who are immune from liability for acts taken within the scope of their judicial duties and functions; the immunity of the Circuit Court judges extends in this case to defendant's agents and employees." The Court of Appeals affirmed on the ground of judicial immunity. Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 87 Or.App. 378, 742 P.2d 669 (1987). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
when the county is sued under the Oregon Tort Claims Act (OTCA), ORS 30.260 to 30.300, for the alleged negligence of an employee of the county clerk's office, serving as a clerk of the circuit court, when the clerk does not docket a dissolution decree incorporating a property settlement agreement because of existing instructions from the presiding judge of the county.
On June 1, 1979, Circuit Judge Patrick Gilroy signed a decree dissolving the marriage of Kay Praggastis and James Praggastis. The decree contained the following paragraph:
When the lawyer for Kay Praggastis (plaintiff) presented the decree and the attached property settlement to the County Clerk of Clackamas County on June 4, 1979, the deputy clerk who received the documents stamped "FILED" on the front page of the decree and made some unidentified notation in the Register of Actions. 1 The deputy clerk did not docket the decree as a judgment in the judgment docket book because she had been instructed to docket only documents which specifically contained language identifying the document as a judgment. 2 Plaintiff discovered the absence of a docketed judgment in 1982 when plaintiff sought the assistance of "collection specialists," who discovered that plaintiff's former husband's obligation did not appear on title company abstracts. Plaintiff claims that when plaintiff's former husband filed for bankruptcy in November 1982, his other creditors were able to defeat plaintiff's claim. Husband claimed debts of $11,960,943.50 and assets of $2,400 in the bankruptcy proceedings.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged that defendant's employees negligently failed to docket her dissolution decree as a judgment against her former husband in accordance with ORS 18.320, which provided:
"Immediately after the entry of judgment in any action the clerk shall docket the same in the judgment docket, noting thereon the day, hour and minute of such docketing. * * * "
Plaintiff alleged that as a consequence of this failure to docket, she was damaged in the amount of $100,000.
At the time the issues in this case arose, official acts of county clerks were governed by the following statutes:
ORS 7.020:
(Emphasis added.)
ORS 7.030:
"The journal is a record wherein the clerk or court administrator shall enter the proceedings of the court during term time, and such proceedings in vacation as the statutes specially direct." (Emphasis added.)
(Emphasis added.)
ORS 18.030:
The alleged source of plaintiff's harm was the clerk's failure to docket the judgment. Plaintiff argues that ORS 18.320 creates a ministerial duty to docket judgments, which was breached by defendant's employee. Plaintiff argues that because this was a ministerial duty, and because the clerk in question was an employee of the elected county clerk, the doctrine of judicial immunity does not apply.
In 1979, the only statutory direction for entry of judgment or decree proceedings was found in ORS 7.030, directing the clerk to enter the proceedings in the journal. 4 ORS 18.320 assumes entry in the journal as a predicate for docketing the judgment. ORS 18.320 directs the clerk to docket the judgment "[i]mmediately after the entry of judgment," which we assume means entry in the journal. As we stated at the outset, the question before the court is not whether a clerk failing to docket a judgment has breached a ministerial duty. The question is whether a clerk who did not docket a decree of dissolution as a judgment in the judgment docket under previous orders from the presiding judge of the court not to do so is protected by judicial immunity. In order to answer that question, we must decide whether the presiding judge had authority to so direct the clerk.
This court has recognized that a clerk who negligently fails to docket a valid judgment has failed to perform a statutorily directed duty, for which the clerk may be liable. Esselstyn v. Casteel, 205 Or. 344, 286 P.2d 665 (1955). Esselstyn involved a divorce decree and involved an allegation that the clerk "failed and neglected to docket the said decree in the judgment docket of Umatilla County at the time it was entered or at any time thereafter." 205 Or. at 349, 286 P.2d 665. In Esselstyn, this court held that, despite the fact that the decree called for a property settlement to be made in installments, it was a judgment entitled to be docketed, and the failure to docket the judgment could have been the cause of the plaintiff's damages; therefore, the court ruled, the plaintiff's complaint should not have been stricken.
Esselstyn, however, does not decide this case. Immunity was not raised as a defense The common law has long recognized that some public officials should be immune from civil actions for some of the actions taken in the execution of their public employment. Judicial immunity has long been a part of the immunities afforded public officials, being mentioned in the Book of Assizes, 27 Edw. III, pl. 18 (1354). The doctrine of immunity for acts performed by a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tennyson v. Children's Services Div., a Div. of Dept. of Human Resources
... ... Respondents on Review/Petitioners on Review, ... Multnomah County, a political subdivision of the State of ... Oregon, and Robert Walliker, individually, and in ... See Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 305 Or. 419, 426-27, 752 P.2d 302 ... (1988) (common law immunities for ... ...
-
Heusel v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY D. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
...below, we conclude that plaintiff's "lack of jurisdiction" analysis is inapt and, consequently, we affirm. In Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 305 Or. 419, 752 P.2d 302 (1988), the court explained the underpinnings of judicial immunity both at common law and as a species of "discretionary fu......
-
Harmon v. State
...Quasi-Judicial Immunity"Judicial immunity has long been a part of the immunities afforded public officials." Praggastis v. Clackamas County , 305 Or. 419, 426, 752 P.2d 302 (1988) ; see also id. (noting judicial immunity is mentioned in the Book of Assizes, 27 Edw. III, pl. 18 (1354)). In P......
-
Fay v. City of Portland
...order or the rules and procedures of the corrections division." This court last discussed judicial immunity 4 in Praggastis v. Clackamas County, 305 Or. 419, 752 P.2d 302 (1988). Praggastis sued Clackamas County, claiming damages for the failure of a court clerk to docket a decree of dissol......