Jager v. County of Alameda

California Court of Appeal Jun 29, 1992 No. A053543Published

Before: Merrill

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the district attorney owes no duty of care to a parent seeking child support enforcement because no attorney-client relationship exists, and that public employees are protected by absolute immunity under Government Code section 821.6.

Issues

Whether an attorney-client relationship exists between a parent and the district attorney in child support enforcement actions.
Whether the district attorney is immune from liability for actions taken in the scope of employment regarding child support enforcement.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“One of the requisite elements of a legal malpractice claim is the existence of an attorney-client relationship or other basis for a duty of care owed by the attorney.”

“Notwithstanding the collateral benefit to the custodial parent, the ‘client’ in such actions remains the county.”

“A public employee is not liable for injury caused by his instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding within the scope of his employment, even if he acts maliciously and without probable cause.”

[296]

Opinion

MERRILL, J.

Procedural and Factual Background

The trial court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to the complaint of appellant Christine Ann Jager which alleged professional negligence on the part of respondents County of Alameda, John J. Meehan, District Attorney of Alameda County, and Board of Supervisors of Alameda County.

Thereafter, the trial court entered judgment against Jager and in favor of respondents. Jager appeals.

By her complaint Jager alleged that on April 27, 1988, the family support division of the Alameda County District Attorney’s office obtained an order modifying a May 1974 judgment which included a child support order for her daughter Heather. The modification order set forth that Jager’s former husband, Gary Hill, owed child support payments in the amount of $21,250. The judgment was recorded on September 28, 1988, and the modification order was recorded on October 13, 1988.

The complaint further alleged that from February 1990, through August 1990, the Alameda County District Attorney was in correspondence with a title company with regard to an escrow account opened for Hill and the payment or release of the child support judgment lien. The district attorney’s office informed the title company that $23,941 was the total amount of the arrearage. In July 1990, the district attorney’s office received a check in this amount from the title company. At approximately the same time, Jager received a check from the district attorney’s office in the amount of $23,941. The district attorney subsequently sent the title company a release of the 1974 judgment and the 1988 modification order.

Jager alleges that in August 1989, she informed an employee of the district attorney’s office that the amount of the child support and interest owed by Hill was $35,710. Her complaint alleged professional negligence on the part of respondent in performing legal services for her and in the release of the judgment lien.

Discussion

In review of an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend we liberally construe the allegations of the complaint to attain substantial

Jager v. County of Alameda

AI Brief

MERRILL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief