Elmore et al v. Mansfield et al

Filing 259

ORDER Denying Approval of Minor Settlement, Without Prejudice (related document: 257 ). Signed on June 12, 2013 by District Judge Greg Kays. (Moore, Terri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION
JOHN P. ELMORE; R.J.E., a minor child,
by her parent and next friend John P. Elmore;
S.I.E., a minor child, by her parent and next
friend John P. Elmore ,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CONNIE MANSFIELD, et. al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-5088-DGK

ORDER DENYING APPROVAL OF MINOR SETTLEMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE
This case arises from Plaintiff John Elmore (“Elmore”) allegations that Defendant Joanna
Arnott and the other Defendants made false sexual abuse claims against Elmore in order to
remove his minor daughters, Plaintiffs S.L.E and R.J.E., from his custody. Plaintiffs allege that
as a result of Defendants’ actions, the children were taken from Elmore and subjected to
traumatic and humiliating gynecological examinations. Plaintiffs brought sixteen claims for
relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Missouri state law.
Now before the Court is the parties’ Joint Petition for Approval of Settlement (Doc. 257)
which will settle all of the Plaintiffs’ claims against all Defendants. The parties request that if
the Court deems appointment of a next friend for minors S.L.E. and R.J.E. necessary before it
can approve the proposed settlement (“the Settlement”), then the Court appoint Plaintiff Elmore
as next friend.
After carefully reviewing the existing record, the Court finds the parties have failed to
sufficiently develop the record to show that the Court should appoint Elmore as next friend and

that the Court should approve the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court denies approval of the
Settlement without prejudice.
Background
The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint (“the Complaint”) are set out in detail
in the Court’s previous order (Doc. 250) granting in part and denying in part Defendant
Castrodale’s motion to dismiss.
Standard
Federal law looks to state law for the standard governing the approval of a minor
settlement. See M.E. v. United States, No. 4:05CV396-DJS, 2006 WL 1556794, at *1 (E.D. Mo.
June 1, 2006) (using state law to determine whether the district court should approve a proposed
minor settlement). There is no dispute here that Missouri law provides the applicable standard
because all of the events in this case occurred in Missouri.
Under Missouri law, a lawsuit by a person who is not yet eighteen years-old may be
settled only by a duly-appointed representative such as a guardian, conservator, next friend, or
guardian ad litem. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 507.110, 507.115; Y.W. v. Nat’l Super Mkts., 876 S.W.2d
785, 788 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). Even a child’s parent must be judicially-appointed to serve as the
minor’s representative. Y.W., 876 S.W.2d at 788. In determining whether a parent is qualified to
serve as next friend and enter a settlement agreement on the child’s behalf, a court should
consider whether the parent has the necessary knowledge and ability and whether a conflict of
interest exists between the parent and child. Id. A parent who is duly-appointed as next friend
may later be disqualified if a conflict of interest arises. Id. In litigation where both parent and
child are parties, the court should consider appointing a conservator ad litem to represent the
minor plaintiff’s interests in settlement discussions. Vincent by Vincent v. Johnson, 833 S.W.2d
859, 863 n.3 (Mo. 1992) (Benton, J.).
2

The statute regulating court approval of a minor settlement1 provides in relevant part that
the court shall have the power to: (1) approve a proposed settlement of a minor’s claim; (2)
authorize the next friend to execute a release of the minor’s claim; (3) approve a fee contract
between the next friend and an attorney representing the minor; and (4) order the next friend to
pay the attorney’s fee and any reasonable expenses. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.184. The purpose of
the statute is “to maximize the protection afforded a minor’s legal action and insure that any
settlement is in the best interest of the child.” Fiegener v. Freeman-Oak Hill Health Sys., 996
S.W.2d 767, 774 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). In reviewing a proposed settlement, the court must keep
in mind that minors are considered wards of the court and their rights must be “jealously guarded
as provided by statute.” Y.W., 876 S.W.2d at 788.
Discussion
Although the Settlement appears to be reasonable at first glance, the Court cannot appoint
Elmore next friend or approve the Settlement on the existing record.
A.

The Court cannot determine from the existing record whether Elmore should be
appointed next friend.
As a threshold matter, the Court is required to appoint a representative for the minors. A

natural guardian is unable to enter into a binding settlement of a minor’s claims unless duly
appointed by the court. Id.
The question here is who should the Court appoint as next friend. Although Elmore is an
obvious candidate because he is the children’s father and sole legal guardian, he may be
disqualified by a conflict of interest. Under the Settlement, Elmore will receive $100,000 while
the minor Plaintiffs will receive $17,166 each, which, after paying attorneys’ fees and costs, will
leave each with $9,442. While there may be good reasons for this disparity—the value of

1

Although the parties’ brief cites several Missouri statutes, it does not cite Mo. Rev. Stat. § 507.184. The Court
reminds the parties that they must cite all relevant controlling authority in their briefing.

3

Elmore’s claims may be greater than the value of children’s claims, or it may have been wiser to
structure the Settlement so as to leave the minors with less than $10,000 and avoid the
transaction costs associated with appointing a conservator2—these reasons need to be articulated.
Unfortunately, the existing record does not explain this apparent conflict of interest and give
detailed reasons why the Court should appoint Elmore as next friend.
B.

The Court cannot determine from the existing record whether the Settlement is in
the children’s best interest.
The record is also insufficiently developed for the Court to determine whether the

Settlement is in the children’s best interest. The Court has three primary concerns.
First, the Court is concerned about the value of the children’s claims. There is no
discussion of the approximate value of the children’s claims versus their recovery under the
Settlement. A plausible valuation of the children’s claims is necessary for the Court to make an
informed, rational decision whether to approve the Settlement. Related to this, the Court is
concerned that the children’s recovery is disproportionate to their father’s recovery. Some
explanation of the approximately 6:1 ratio between Elmore’s recovery and the children’s
recovery is needed.
Second, while the parties have indicated that $7,724 in fees and expenses will be
deducted from each child’s $17,166 recovery, the parties have not listed how much of this is for
attorneys’ fees and how much is for expenses. This information is statutorily required and
necessary for the Court to approve the attorney fee contract and payment. Mo. Rev. Stat. §
507.184.3.

2

If a minor receives less than $10,000 in a settlement exclusive of attorneys’ fees and expenses, the court may, if it
finds it to be in the best interest of the minor, order that the money be paid directly to the minor. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§
507.118(1), 475.330.

4

Third, the parties have not stated whether any attorneys’ fees or expenses will be
deducted from Elmore’s portion of the recovery, and if so, how much. This is problematic. If
attorneys’ fees and expenses are deducted from the children’s share of the recovery only, or are
deducted at a higher rate than from Elmore’s portion of the recovery, then this weighs against
approval. That said, the Court suspects that the omission of fees and expenses deducted from
Elmore’s share of the recovery is merely an oversight which the parties can easily correct.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the parties’ motion is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Court will promptly review any revised motions providing the additional
information.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 12, 2013

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5