Neutral Accounting Expert Denied Quasi-Judicial Immunity
The Minnesota Court of Appeals has opined that experts retained on a neutral basis by the parties to an action for dissolution of marriage are not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity (they are not immune from being sued for malpractice).
In Peterka v. Dennis, appellant sued respondents, an accountant and his employer, asserting that the accountant committed malpractice, for which his employer is vicariously liable, in evaluating businesses in connection with appellant’s dissolution action. Because the accountant was retained as an independent neutral evaluator of the businesses and a Hennepin County District Court Order required appellant and her husband to cooperate with and pay for the evaluation, respondents moved for summary judgment asserting quasi-judicial immunity. The district court granted summary judgment, holding that court appointment and public policy required that respondents be protected by quasi-judicial immunity. Because it concluded that respondent's accountant was not retained or appointed to perform a "judicial" function, the Minnesota Court of Appeals opted to reverse and remand.
The Court held that Dennis’ evaluation of business assets did not involve an "exercise of authority that is essentially judicial in nature." Dennis’ function was to apply sound accounting principles to develop factual bases supporting his expert opinion on the value of businesses in which appellant and her husband had an interest. Dennis had to exercise the same skill and judgment required by those in his profession; but exercise of that judgment did not equate to performing a judicial function. Dennis was retained, whether by appellant and her husband, or by the court, to give his expert opinion on the businesses’ value, not as a "decision-maker to determine competing claims" of appellant and her husband. For these reasons the Court concluded that even if Dennis was a court-appointed neutral, he was not appointed to perform a judicial function, and therefore is not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity. Because Dennis is not entitled to such immunity, Baune Dosen is therefore not entitled to vicarious quasi-judicial immunity.
