Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
Phone: 612.333.3000
Fax: 612.333.8829
Bassford Remele is a full service litigation firm located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Founded in 1882, the firm represents local, national and international clients in all areas of civil litigation and dispute resolution.
Case Law Update
Date: Feb 1, 2008 — Minneapolis, MN
During the week of February 1, 2008, the Minnesota appellate courts released an opinion on the following topic that may be of interest to our clients:
QUASI-JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
- Neither public policy nor a court order requiring the parties to select an independent neutral confers quasi-judicial immunity on an independent neutral retained to perform an evaluation of the parties’ business assets.
After bringing an action to dissolve her marriage, plaintiff and her husband sought to engage defendant, an accountant, to value their business assets. The accountant conditioned his participation on the parties obtaining a court order appointing him a neutral. The district court issued a stipulated order appointing the accountant as a neutral and requiring plaintiff and her husband to cooperate with the independent evaluation.
At the dissolution trial, the district court valued the business assets based upon the accountant’s testimony. After judgment was entered, plaintiff sued the accountant for malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment barring the claims against the accountant on the ground that he was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity as a court-appointed neutral and because public policy required such neutrals be protected by immunity.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the accountant did not qualify for quasi-judicial immunity because, even if he was a court-appointed neutral, he was not appointed to perform a judicial function. Rendering an expert opinion on the businesses’ value was not a judicial function as the accountant was not acting as a decision-maker to determine competing claims of the plaintiff and her husband. Rejecting the argument that professionals will be reluctant to provide services to the court without a grant of quasi-judicial immunity, the Court also held that public policy did not entitle the accountant to immunity because he was providing a service to parties who were free to disagree with his conclusions and offer competing evidence.
Peterka v. Dennis, Minnesota Court of Appeals, No. A07-0165, January 29, 2008.
Editorial Staff |
C. Lundberg, C. Morris, K. Putney, R.A. Williams, |
Writer this Week: |