EC.T. v. G.L.L.
No. E110339
Decision Filed: November 15, 2022
Appeal from Circuit Court of Washington Court to Missouri Court of Appeals – Eastern District
Outcome: Trial Court Ruling Affirmed
In May of 2018, J.L.L. (hereinafter “Father”) filed a Petition for Declaration of Paternity, Order of Child Custody, Visitation and Support of X.L. (hereinafter “Minor Child”) against the minor child’s Mother. Later, Father’s mother, C.T. (hereinafter “Grandmother”) filed her First Amended Petition for Third Party Custody, Paternity and Guardianship. She requested visitation 2 with X.L. pursuant to Section 452.402.
A bench trial was held and Grandmother’s petitions pursuant to Section 452.402 were denied, concluding, as relevant here, that Grandmother did not meet the requirements of Section 452.402 for grandparent visitation. On February 25, 2020, Grandmother filed a notice of appeal in this Court. In her two points on appeal, Grandmother argued the trial court misapplied Section 452.402. While Grandmother’s appeal was pending, Father moved the trial court for an award of attorney fees on appeal pursuant to Section 452.355.
Grandmother lost on appeal. With respect to the Father’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Grandmother argued that attorney’s fees can’t be assessed against an intervenor. Father responded by saying that the statue permits recovery of attorney’s fees in grandparent visitation cases.
Following a trial on August 27, 2021, the trial court denied Father’s request for attorney’s fees. Father appealed the trial court’s ruling. On the first two points on appeal, Father contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying him an award of attorney fees pursuant to either Section 452.355 or 452.402. On his third and fourth point on appeal, Father argues that that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Father’s requested fees were excessive and Grandmother lacked the resources to pay them.
In its opinion, the Appellate Court noted that, “. . . that not every successful litigant is awarded attorney fees. Arrowhead Lake Ests. Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Aggarwal, 624 S.W.3d 165, 167 (Mo. banc 2021). The American Rule provides that, absent statutory authorization or contractual agreement, each party is required to pay his own attorney fees. Id.; Corley v. Corley, 128 S.W.3d 521, 526 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003). In this particular instance, there was no contract that entitled Father to recover attorney’s fees.
With regards to the argument that Section 452.355.1 gives the court discretion to permit grant attorney’s fees, the Appellate Court noted that while the statute gives the Court the discretion to grant attorney’s fees it is not obligated to do so. Furthermore, since Grandmother failed to meet the requirements of an intervenor, the provision that would allow Father to recover attorney’s fees does not apply.
On his third point, Father concedes that a trial court has discretion to deny attorney’s fees but notes that the trial court should have independently determined what a reasonable request for attorney’s fees are. Also, Father argued in dissolution proceedings that one party’s ability to pay over the party’s is taken into consideration. Father made this point since Grandmother’s gross income is double his income. The Appellate Court held that Father’s requested fees for a relatively straightforward appeal greatly exceeded Grandmother’s gross income for an entire year. Furthermore, the Appellate Court held that though the trial court had statutory discretion to award attorney fees, its denial of Father’s motion for attorney fees on appeal was not an abuse of that discretion.
Trial Court Ruling Affirmed.
