71 So. 3d 1004
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Married in 1991; children Devin (1995) and Danielle (1997).
- Divorce petition filed September 2008; parties sought custody and child support; Ms. Barnes claimed no fault.
- May 2009: judgment granted joint custody with Ms. Barnes as domiciliary parent; interim child support of $1,275/month ordered.
- December 2009–February 2010: divorce finalized in Ms. Barnes’ favor; Mr. Barnes later sought reduction of child support based on alleged changes in Ms. Barnes’s employment.
- August 2010: hearing held; trial court treated issue as final child support and ultimately granted involuntary dismissal with prejudice of the rule for child support.
- Ms. Barnes appealed; the appellate court reversed, reinstated interim support retroactively, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was involuntary dismissal with prejudice proper? | Barnes argues dismissal contradicted child-support policy and public policy. | Barnes contends dismissal due to lack of evidence was appropriate under 1672(B). | No; trial court erred; dismissal with prejudice reversed and remanded. |
| Did the court improperly shift burden and redefine the issue to final child support? | Barnes asserts the issue remained preliminary—voluntarily unemployed/underemployed analysis—without proper notice. | Barnes maintains the issue before court was to set or reduce final child support. | Yes; burden and issue misapplied; propriety reversed. |
| Did the trial court abuse the statutory and policy framework governing child support? | Barnes argues public policy prohibits depriving children of support or barring future claims absent change in circumstances. | Barnes contends the existing rule and burden justified dismissal. | Yes; abuse of discretion found; remand for proper proceedings and potential reinstatement. |
| Should interim child support be reinstated retroactively on remand? | Barnes seeks reinstatement of interim support as previously ordered. | Barnes argues modification procedure governs future adjustments. | Yes; interim support reinstated retroactively pending further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leger v. Leger, 808 So.2d 632 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2001) (public policy and parental duty to support)
- Fink v. Bryant, 801 So.2d 346 (La. 2001) (support obligation rooted in parental status)
- Armstrong v. Rayford, 902 So.2d 1214 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (burden to prove modification based on material change in circumstances)
- Smith v. Knight, 907 So.2d 831 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2005) (great discretion in involuntary dismissal; standard of review)
- Tate v. Tate, 42 So.3d 439 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2010) (distinguishes motion types (involuntary dismissal vs directed verdict) in bench trials)