Opinion
No. 4-185 / 03-0195.
June 9, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Gerald W. Magee, Associate Juvenile Judge.
The State Public Defender's office petitioned for a writ of certiorari asserting the district court did not have authority to consider a review of a denial of a court-appointed attorney fee claim. WRIT SUSTAINED, JUDGMENT VACATED, AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Thomas G. Becker, State Public Defender, and Julie Miller, Assistant State Public Defender, for appellant.
Cynthia S. Schuknecht of Noah, Smith Schuknecht, P.L.C., Charles City, Guardian ad Litem.
Heard by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
The Iowa State Public Defender's office petitioned for a writ of certiorari asserting the district court did not have authority to consider a review of a denial of a court-appointed attorney fee claim. We sustain the writ, vacate the judgment, and remand the case with directions.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
In October 2002, attorney DeDra Schroeder submitted a claim for fees of $2,275 and expenses of $161.92 to the State Public Defender's office for court-appointed work in a termination of parental rights case. On October 25, 2002, the State Public Defender sent a Notice of Action letter to Schroeder denying the fees that exceeded the established limitation under the Iowa Administrative Code r. 493-12.6 (2002) and decreased her claim to $1,500. In addition Schroeder's claimed expenses were reduced to $8.40 for want of proper documentation submitted with the claim.
Schroeder did not seek judicial review of this decision as allowed under Iowa Code section 13B.4(4)(d) (2001). Instead, on November 7, Schroeder filed with the district court an application to exceed fee limitations which the court approved on November 12. Schroeder then submitted a second fee claim to the State Public Defender, requesting the originally denied $775. Attached to the claim was the district court order authorizing her to exceed the fee limitation. The State Public Defender again denied Schroeder's request explaining that the proper remedy would have been to request a hearing under Iowa Code section 13B.4(4)(d) after the October 25 Notice of Action letter.
The State Public Defender was not notified of this application.
On December 4, 2002, Schroeder filed an application for a review hearing with the district court challenging the denial of the second fee claim pursuant to section 13B.4(4)(d). Notice was provided to the State Public Defender but no response was made nor did the public defender appear at the hearing. Following the hearing on December 19, 2002, and finding no objection, the district court granted Schroeder's application. The State Public Defender subsequently filed a motion to enlarge or amend the court's findings pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2), which was denied. Claiming the court's action was illegal or exceeded its authority, the State Public Defender now seeks a writ of certiorari. Scope of Review.
However, the State Public Defender's Rule 1.904(2) motion stated that in a conversation with Ms. Schroeder, the public defender, "was led to believe that the issues had been resolved and that Ms. Schroeder would either request that the hearing set for December 19 would be continued or cancelled to allow time for Ms. Schroeder to submit further information to the state public defender." Later at the hearing, Ms. Schroeder repeated this position and stated to the court, "[A]t this point I stand with [the public defender] thinking we do not need a hearing and I simply just want to be paid the fees I've requested." The court order included a finding that "the failure of the Office of State Public Defender to appear for hearing to be not only discourteous, but unprofessional." On our review, it appears there was a breakdown in the communication between the attorneys and the court rather than an intentional disregard on the part of the State Public Defender to attend the scheduled hearing.
The court also ordered that Schroeder and Cynthia Schuknecht, the guardian ad litem, may submit a further claim for their services for preparation and attendance at the review hearing in an amount not to exceed $150 and $50, respectively. However, Schuknecht concedes that this is not allowed under the Iowa Code or Iowa Administrative Code.
Schroeder has not filed a brief in this writ action; however she did file a letter stating that she takes no position in this matter. Cynthia Schuknecht has filed a brief. As she is not a party to the writ action, we dismiss her responses, absent the concession on the award of $50 as mentioned above.
"Illegality exists when the findings on which the court has based its conclusions of law do not have substantial evidentiary support or when the court has not applied the proper rule of law." Whitlock v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 497 N.W.2d 891, 893 (Iowa 1993). Although the district court's well-supported factual findings are binding upon this court, its legal conclusions are not. State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Wapello County, 644 N.W.2d 354, 356 (Iowa 2002). When the legality of the court's action depends upon the interpretation of a statute, we review for correction of errors at law. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 630 N.W.2d 778, 779-80 (Iowa 2001). We may sustain the proceedings below, annul the proceedings wholly or in part, or prescribe the manner in which either party may proceed, but we may not substitute an amended order for that of the district court. Hearity v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 440 N.W.2d 860, 862-63 (Iowa 1989).
Discussion.
The State Public Defender argues that the district court did not have authority to consider Schroeder's tardy motion to review its decision regarding the partial denial of the claim for attorney fees. If an attorney wishes to challenge the State Public Defender's denial of her claimed fees, "[t]he motion [for review] must be filed within twenty days of any action taken by the state public defender." Iowa Code § 13B.4(4)(d). In its October 25, 2002 Notice of Action letter to Schroeder, the State Public Defender noted Schroeder's right to seek review pursuant to section 13B.4(4)(d). Although Schroeder proceeded to ask the district court to allow her to exceed the fee limitation within the twenty days, she did not file her application for review of the public defender's denial of her claim until December 4, 2002, forty days after the Notice of Action letter was sent. The fact that the State Public Defender failed to resist this application is irrelevant it was untimely. "If the attorney fails to seek review within the applicable time frame, the attorney loses the opportunity to have the district court examine the state public defender's disposition of the attorney's fee claim." State Pub. Defender v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Johnson County, 663 N.W.2d 413, 416-17 (Iowa 2003). Moreover, had Schroeder sought timely review of the denial of her first fee claim, she would have been required to give the State Public Defender ten days' notice of such hearing pursuant to Iowa Code section 13B.4(4)(d)(2). Instead, she circumvented that procedure, by simply asking the district court to allow her to exceed the fee limitation and then refiling her claim form (and attached court order) with the State Public Defender. When the district court heard the second and uncontested denial of claimed fees the court did not have authority to hear the review as the application was not timely. "[W]here a right of judicial review is statutory, the procedure prescribed by the statute must be followed." Kerr v. Iowa Pub. Service Co., 274 N.W.2d 283, 287 (Iowa 1979). The failure of the State Public Defender to present this argument does not exempt Schroeder from the statutory requirements as the failure to satisfy the statutory requirements is a jurisdictional defect. Id. at 287-88. Therefore, the district court lacked authority to grant review of the State Public Defender's denial of fees.
Since these proceedings, Iowa Code section 13B.4(4)(d)(2) has been amended, effective July 1, 2003, to read in part, "The state public defender shall not be required to file a resistance to the motion filed under this paragraph `d'."
The district court also erroneously ordered that Schroeder and Schuknecht could submit a claim for fees in preparation for and attendance at the review hearing. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 493-12.(8) ("Claims for . . . preparation of motion and order and any subsequent hearing for review of an attorney fee claim are not payable under the attorney's appointment and will be denied.").
Therefore, we sustain the writ, vacate the district court's judgment and remand this matter for entry of an order dismissing Schroeder's application for hearing.