Shoenthal v. Dekalb Cnty. Emps. Ret. Sys. Pension Bd.
Decision Date | 28 September 2017 |
Docket Number | A17A1065 |
Citation | 805 S.E.2d 650 |
Parties | SHOENTHAL et al. v. DEKALB COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM PENSION BOARD et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Christopher Scott Anulewicz, Brooke Walker Gram, Atlanta, for Appellant.
Richard Read Gignilliat, Richard Murray Escoffery, Duluth, Stanford G. Wilson, Sydney S. Hu, Atlanta, for Appellee.
In the third appearance of this case before this Court,1 Rachel and Rebecca Shoenthal (collectively "Plaintiffs"), daughters of the late Judge Elliott Shoenthal, contend that the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees to the DeKalb County Employees Retirement System Pension Board ("the Board") pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14. We agree and reverse.
The underlying facts as set out in Shoenthal v. Shoenthal , 337 Ga. App. 515, 788 S.E.2d 116 (2016) (hereinafter " Shoenthal II ") are:
on December 1, 2013. Judge Shoenthal never mailed or delivered the change-of-beneficiary form.
Around the time Judge Shoenthal was released from the hospital, Fran discovered that he had changed or intended to change the beneficiaries on his pension plan. About a week after Judge Shoenthal's death, Fran submitted an application to receive Judge Shoenthal's pension benefits. Later that month, the change-of-beneficiary form was found on or in Judge Shoenthal's desk, and Fran was told about it. On January 1, 2014, the Board began sending monthly pension payments to Fran. A few days later, one of the Plaintiffs hand-delivered the signed change-of-beneficiary form to the Board and requested that it be honored. The Board informed Plaintiffs that it would not recognize the change-of-beneficiary form, but did not provide a reason.
We granted Plaintiffs' application for discretionary review of the award of attorney fees.
Pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 (a), the trial court shall award attorney fees when a party asserted a claim, defense or other position with "such a complete absence of any justiciable issue of law or fact" that the party could not reasonably have believed that the court would accept it. We affirm an award under subsection (a) if there is any evidence to support it. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-15-14 (b), the court may award attorney fees if a party brought or defended an action that "lacked substantial justification" or "was interposed for delay or harassment, or if the court finds that an attorney or party unnecessarily expanded the proceeding by other improper conduct." We review a subsection (b) fee award for abuse of discretion.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Reynolds v. Clark , 322 Ga. App. 788, 789-90 (1), 746 S.E.2d 266 (2013). "[T]o the extent that the evidence relevant to the question of attorney fees consists of the state of the law, we make our own assessment of that evidence and decide for ourselves whether the claim asserted below presented a justiciable issue of law." (Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Gibson Constr. Co. v. GAA Acquisitions I , 314 Ga. App. 674, 676-677, 725 S.E.2d 806 (2012) (). Moreover, the mere fact that the Board prevailed on its motion for judgment on the pleadings, does not mandate an award of attorney fees. See Brown v. Kinser , 218 Ga. App. 385, 387 (1), 461 S.E.2d 564 (1995) (). "[F]or purposes of OCGA § 9-15-14, the relevant question is whether some authority arguably supported [Plaintiffs'] position." Russell v. Sparmer , 339 Ga. App. 207, 210 (1), 793 S.E.2d 501 (2016) (physical precedent only), citing Hall v. Hall , 241 Ga. App. 690, 692 (1), 527 S.E.2d 288 (1999) () (punctuation omitted).
The Board contends that the award was warranted because Plaintiffs' claim that the language of the Pension Code was subject to more than one interpretation was unreasonable. In support of this contention, the Board maintains that there is no caselaw addressing the meaning of Section 908 of the Pension Code because "no previous potential claimant has been willing to pursue a claim predicated on a position that is so clearly foreclosed by the plain language of the Pension Code." The Board's argument illustrates one of the classic logical fallacies: appeal to ignorance or an argument from ignorance.4 An argument from ignorance is "the mistake that is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true." Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne , 477 F.3d 1250, 1257 (II) (A) (1) (11th Cir. 2007), citing Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic 93 (8th ed. 1990). The Board mistakenly assumes that the absence of caselaw interpreting Section 908 of the Pension Code proves that Plaintiffs' claim "suffered a complete absence of any justifiable issue of law or fact." This contention ignores that the converse assumption is equally true: The absence of caselaw means that the issue was one of first impression. And, given our analysis in Shoenthal II of Section 908 and Judge Shoenthal's conduct in relation to the change-of-beneficiary form, we believe the latter assumption to be more applicable in this case.
Although we affirmed the trial court's decision in Shoenthal II , our ruling required us to construe Section 908 of the Pension Code. The Board has not cited to, and we are not aware of, another case where we have interpreted this section of the DeKalb County Pension Code or addressed a similar factual scenario. See, e.g., Fox v. City of Cumming , 298 Ga. App. 134, 134-136, 679 S.E.2d 365 (2009) ( ). We ultimately concluded that Judge Shoenthal's failure to personally send the change-of-beneficiary form to the Board meant that he did not comply with the relevant section of the Code. However, given the language in the section of the Pension Code that we were called upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hicks v. Gabor
...by other improper conduct. We review a subsection (b) fee award for abuse of discretion. Shoenthal v. DeKalb County Employees Retirement System Pension Bd. , 343 Ga. App. 27, 30, 805 S.E.2d 650 (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). Before awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14, "[......
-
Hicks v. Gabor
...(b) fee award for abuse of discretion. Shoenthal v. Dekalb County Employees Retirement System Pension Bd. , 343 Ga. App. 27, 30, 805 S.E.2d 650 (2017) (citation and punctuation omitted). Before awarding attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14, "[t]he trial court must conduct a hearing on a motio......
-
Matthews v. Mills
...claims "does not mandate an award of attorney fees." (Citation omitted.) (1999) Shoenthal v. DeKalb County Employees Retirement System Pension Bd. , 343 Ga. App. 27, 30, 805 S.E.2d 650 (2017). However, neither does "merely pursuing a course of litigation in good faith ... automatically insu......
-
McLaws v. Drew
...court's award of attorney fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 (b) for an abuse of discretion. Shoenthal v. DeKalb County Employees Retirement System Pension Board , 343 Ga. App. 27, 30, 805 S.E.2d 650 (2017). Such an abuse of discretion occurs "where a ruling is unsupported by any evidence of record ......