VADA ENDICOTT MARTIN V. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED : JUNE 12, 2003
TO BE PUBLI
,$uyr=$ (ifourf of
2003-SC-0315-OA
VADA ENDICOTT MARTIN
V.
ORIGINAL ACTION UNDER CR 76 .36
FLOYD CIRCUIT COURT NO. 92-CI-0929
HONORABLE JULIE PAXTON, JUDGE
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
COURTS
APPELLEE
OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE WINTERSHEIMER
Vada Endicott Martin brings this action directly to this Court to obtain a writ of
mandamus to require the Administrative Office of the Courts to reimburse her for the
costs of preparing and transcribing transcripts for the appeal of her circuit court case to
the Court of Appeals which is anticipated to cost $67.50. That appeal had been filed in
forma pauperis . See Martin v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Cabinet for Families and
Children, et al . , No. 2002-CA-1750-MR.
The underlying case, now pending in the Court of Appeals, concerns whether the
inclusion of SSI payments as income in determining child support is contrary to federal
law, and therefore unconstitutional . This Court has previously addressed this question
in Commonwealth, ex rel . Morris v. Morris , Ky ., 984 S .W .2d 840 (1998), and concluded
that SSI benefits are properly included in gross income . The parties have three minor
children who reside with the father, James Endicott . The Cabinet for Families and
Children, through the Floyd County Attorney's Office, Division of Child Support, is the
agency that has sought to establish and enforce a child support obligation against
Martin .
Endicott had filed a motion with the circuit court to obtain payment for the
transcription costs . The Floyd County Circuit Court entered an order not requiring the
AOC to pay the transcription costs. Counsel for the Attorney General and counsel for
Martin filed a joint motion to alter, amend, or vacate stating that the circuit court lacks
jurisdiction to hear this matter.
The motion contended that there was an error of law in the decision of the court
not to order the AOC to pay transcription costs. It claimed that the court relied on CR
75.15 and reasoned that the parties in the underlying appeal can submit an agreed
statement of the case rather than the certified record on appeal as CR 75.07 allows .
The joint motion asserted that the language of CR 75.15 is optional which is
indicated by the word "may," thus there is no direct requirement that the agreed
statement has to be submitted and such a reading is contrary to CR 75 .07. The parties
agree that the circuit court lacks jurisdiction to order the AOC to pay transcription fees
because the agency is a branch of the Supreme Court. This Court has accepted review
of this case .
Scope of Review
Martin contends that as a branch of the Kentucky Supreme Court, only this Court
can order the AOC to comply with the law. Ex garte Auditor of Public Accounts, Ky.,
609 S.W .2d 682 (1980). Martin argues that KRS 453 .190(1) imposes a financial
obligation on the AOC to pay the transcription costs of indigents pursuing an appeal,
citing the language of the statute as follows ". . . including the preparation of necessary
transcripts for appeal, without any fees . . ." She seeks a writ of mandamus for this
Court to order the AOC to pay the anticipated costs of transcribing the circuit court
proceedings .
This Court is generally authorized to exercise appellate jurisdiction only, except it
shall have the power to issue all writs necessary in the aid of its appellate jurisdiction or
the complete determination of any cause or as may be required to exercise control of
the Court of Justice . Section 110(2)(a) Ky. Const. The Administrative Office of the
Courts, as an inseparable part of the Office of the Chief Justice, cannot be properly
sued in any of the other courts of the state . Cf. Ex parte Auditor of Public Accounts,
Ky., 609 S.W .2d 682 (1980) ; Accord Ex parte Farley , Ky., 570 S .W.2d 617 (1978).
A writ of mandamus, like its legal cousin, a writ of prohibition, is an extraordinary
remedy authorized by Sections 110 and 111 of the Kentucky Constitution . It may be
used by a court in a discretionary manner and only when the situation is so exceptional
that there is no adequate remedy at law to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Graham v.
Mills , Ky., 694 S .W.2d 698 (1985).
Writs of prohibition and mandamus as extraordinary remedies are reserved for
those situations in which a court is acting 1) without or beyond its jurisdiction and there
is no adequate remedy by appeal; 2) outside its statutory authority; or 3) within its
jurisdiction but erroneously . In the last category, the petitioner must also demonstrate
that there is no adequate remedy by appeal and irreparable injury or great injustice will
result without the writ. Bender v. Eaton, Ky., 343 S.W.2d 799 (1961).
Ordinarily, proceedings under CR 76 .36 involve original proceedings filed in the
Court of Appeals and then reviewed by the Supreme Court . A direct approach to the
Supreme Court is envisioned by Ex parte Auditor of Public Accounts , supra . Here,
Martin seeks reimbursement for costs apparently already expended . A review of the
Court of Appeals records indicates that the underlying case is in the process of briefing
with the brief of the appellant filed April 8, 2003 and the brief of the appellee filed May
12, 2003. It is possible that a reply brief may be filed before May 27, 2003. In any
event, the case is proceeding in the Court of Appeals in a timely fashion .
In the circuit court, the trial judge gave the parties the opportunity to submit an
appeal on an agreed statement rather than on the certified record on appeal as
contemplated by CR 75.07. If that opportunity had been used, the question of costs of
a transcript would not have arisen . However, the parties chose not to pursue that
option .
By applying the standards set out for writs of mandamus or prohibition, we find
that there is no irreparable injury or great injustice that will result and that Martin has an
adequate remedy by appeal through the Court of Appeals . We determine that this case
is not one of such great public importance as contemplated by Ex parte Auditor of
Public Accounts.
KRS 453 .190(1) contains no language that requires the Administrative Office of
the Courts to pay for transcripts for an appeal . To order the AOC to pay the
transcription costs of indigent appellants would be a violation of the separation of
powers doctrine . The Court of Justice is an independent branch of state government
and not subject to interference in the management and use of its budget by the General
Assembly. Ky. Const. ยง27 & 28 . The authority and responsibility of determining the
necessity and propriety of expenditures from the judicial budget rests solely with the
judicial branch and is not subject to executive or legislative regulations . See Ex parte
Auditor of Public Accounts. It should be noted that the responsibility for criminal appeal
transcripts was transferred to the Department for Public Advocacy, and the General
Assembly no longer provides funding to the Court of Justice for pauper transcripts . On
April 20, 1995, then Chief Justice Robert F. Stephens entered an order which rescinded
the authorization for the payment of transcripts by the Administrative Office of the
Courts.
The circuit judge lacked any authority or jurisdiction to order the AOC to pay for
an appellate indigent record transcription . Her action in this matter does not require
mandamus and was correct .
Thus, the petition seeking a writ of mandamus is denied .
All concur, except Stumbo, J ., who dissents without opinion .
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT :
Michael P. Studebaker
Appalachian Research & Defense Fund of
Kentucky, Inc.
120 North Front Avenue
Prestonsburg, KY 41653
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE :
Cicely Jaracz Lambert, Director
Administrative Office of the Courts
100 Millcreek Park
Frankfort, KY 40601
William B. Pettus
Assistant Attorney General
Civil and Environmental Law
700 Capital Avenue
Capitol Building, Suite 18
Frankfort, KY 40601
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
