The Oklahoma Supreme Court released its second opinion of 2010, and boy was it kind of a shocker to me.

The case is Fent v. State ex. rel. Department of Human Services, 2010 OK 2, and addresses the issue of whether 28 O.S. § 152(D)(E) and (F) as well as 28 O.S. § 152.1(B) are constitutional because the statutes require a portion of fees paid to the court clerks in civil actions be credited or deposited to the accounts of certain non-judicial programs.

Mr. Fent argued that any fees charged in civil cases which were credited to non-judicial programs, in this case the Department of Human Services and the Attorney General’s victim’s fun, were unconstitutional because they denied litigants access to the courts. The Court agreed with Mr. Fent, holding that "the open access to the courts is violated if persons seeking to litigate in court are assessed and required to pay for programs that have no relation to the services being provided or to the maintenance of the courts. While litigants should certainly have to bear a portion of the costs of operating the courts, they should not bear the burden of funding unrelated state programs."

The Court analyzed the rulings of other states, and prior holdings, noting that in some instances any fees charged were for use in maintaining the courts or court system. The Court reasoned that:

These three programs, while laudable, are not related to services provided by the courts for which reimbursement to the State is permitted by imposing fees on those making use of the courts. These three programs are not for the maintenance or support of the court system, nor do they defray expenses of the court system. Though such programs may indisputably be worthwhile, and the provision of such services necessary, they do not serve a judicial or even a quasi-judicial function . . . . The three programs are social welfare programs under the operation of the executive branch of government. The worthiness or the desirability of these programs is not the issue before the Court today. These programs have been deemed worthy of creation by the legislature. It is the funding of these programs through the use of fees imposed on litigants that is impermissible. The legislature has imposed a fee or tax on those making use of the courts and has directed the court clerks to deposit those funds to the credit of these programs. The challenged statutes require the judicial branch of government to collect monies to be used to help fund social welfare programs operated by the executive branch of government. The courts may not be a tax collector for the executive branch of government.

Now, really we’re only talking about $33.00, hardly a significant sum. However, when you compare the fee to the overall cost of filing a case, the removal of this fee could reduce the cost of filing a lawsuit. Currently, the fee to file an action over $10,000 is $205.30. If you remove the 33.00 fee, now you’re talking about a cost of $172.00 to file a lawsuit. This is a generous savings to the Plaintiff, meaning that when and if a recovery occurs, more money returns to the party instead of to costs.

Unfortunately for prior litigants, the Court’s decision doesn’t require court clerks to refund money. However, for any future filings, the cost of the litigation will decrease.

I believe as the Court does, and that although some worthwhile programs miss out on the funding this provides, it is the legislature’s duty to fund these sorts of programs, not the injured individual who files a cause of action.