M.M. through his next friend Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration

FAMILY LAW

Mike Keramidas

In M.M. ex rel. Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration, the supreme court held that (1) the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) could contract with third-party service providers to fulfill its duty of providing wards with in-person quarterly visits, and (2) a “next friend” could not be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees in an action involving an incompetent plaintiff. M.M., an incapacitated individual, filed a class action complaint through his mother, as next friend, against OPA. M.M.’s OPA guardian contracted with a service provider to provide him with care and visits at an assisted living home. M.M. argued that Alaska law required his public guardian, not a contracted party, to provide at least one in-person visit every quarter. The superior court held that OPA was properly contracting for services that assisted public guardians with carrying out their duties and that M.M.’s next friend was personally liable for attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the lower court’s holding permitting the OPA to contract with service providers to provide quarterly ward visits. The court reasoned that the statute’s plain language allowed OPA to hire a service provider to provide quarterly visits as a way to “contract for services necessary to carry out” its duties. Furthermore, legislative history supported the State’s argument, along with public policy to allow OPA to provide the best care as possible for its wards. The court reversed and remanded the attorneys’ fees awards, as the statute was not clear that a next friend could be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees. Affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) could contract with third-party service providers to fulfill its duty of providing wards with in-person quarterly visits and that (2) a “next friend” could not be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees in an action involving an incompetent plaintiff.

M.M. through his next friend Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration

FAMILY LAW

Mike Keramidas

In M.M. ex rel. Kirkland v. State, Department of Administration, the supreme court held that (1) the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) could contract with third-party service providers to fulfill its duty of providing wards with in-person quarterly visits, and (2) a “next friend” could not be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees in an action involving an incompetent plaintiff. M.M., an incapacitated individual, filed a class action complaint through his mother, as next friend, against OPA. M.M.’s OPA guardian contracted with a service provider to provide him with care and visits at an assisted living home. M.M. argued that Alaska law required his public guardian, not a contracted party, to provide at least one in-person visit every quarter. The superior court held that OPA was properly contracting for services that assisted public guardians with carrying out their duties and that M.M.’s next friend was personally liable for attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the supreme court affirmed the lower court’s holding permitting the OPA to contract with service providers to provide quarterly ward visits. The court reasoned that the statute’s plain language allowed OPA to hire a service provider to provide quarterly visits as a way to “contract for services necessary to carry out” its duties. Furthermore, legislative history supported the State’s argument, along with public policy to allow OPA to provide the best care as possible for its wards. The court reversed and remanded the attorneys’ fees awards, as the statute was not clear that a next friend could be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees. Affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part the superior court’s decision, the supreme court held that (1) the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) could contract with third-party service providers to fulfill its duty of providing wards with in-person quarterly visits and that (2) a “next friend” could not be held personally liable for attorneys’ fees in an action involving an incompetent plaintiff.