257 So. 3d 202
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Patricia and Cye Courtois were enjoined from communicating with or harassing neighbors Margaret and Joseph Giglio; the Courtois allegedly violated the injunction by cutting shrubs, damaging drainage, performing prohibited work in a setback, and photographing the Giglios' yard.
- The Giglios moved to hold Mr. Courtois in contempt; the trial court found willful contempt, fined him $500, and later held a hearing on attorney fees.
- The trial court awarded the Giglios $11,587.50 in attorney fees for work on the contempt motion (written judgment controlled over the oral amount).
- The Courtois appealed, arguing (1) attorney fees cannot be awarded because the Giglios’ lawyer volunteered services and no fees were paid or owed, and (2) the trial court erred in striking an untimely supplemental opposition memorandum.
- The Courtois did not challenge the contempt finding nor the reasonableness of the fee amount; the Giglios sought additional fees for work on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prevailing party whose counsel volunteered services can recover attorney fees in a contempt proceeding | Courtois: Fees cannot be awarded because Giglios did not pay and incurred no obligation to pay counsel (citing Goodrich/Rhodes line) | Giglios/State: La. law permits fee awards to prevailing party in contempt; purpose is to vindicate court dignity and sanction disobedience | Court: Fee award proper under La.R.S. 13:4611(1)(g); volunteering counsel does not bar fee award in contempt; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in striking an untimely supplemental opposition | Courtois: Trial court erred in striking memo filed two days before hearing (violating Dist. Ct. Rule 9.9) | Giglios/State: Rule 9.9 time limits are mandatory; trial court may exclude late filings; striking was within discretion | Court: Striking was proper and not an abuse of discretion; issue rendered moot by rejection of primary argument |
| Whether appellee (Giglios) is entitled to additional attorney fees for work on appeal | Giglios: Requested appellate fees for defending the judgment | Courtois: No response in brief; appellee did not answer or appeal | Court: Denied; appellee who neither appeals nor answers is not entitled to appellate fees; existing award adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodrich v. Exxon Co., USA, 608 So.2d 1019 (La. Ct. App. 1992) (holds absence of proof of payment or obligation defeats recovery of attorney fees in some civil contexts)
- Rhodes v. Collier, 41 So.2d 669 (La. 1949) (older authority on proof of payment/obligation for fee recovery)
- Howard v. Oden, 5 So.3d 989 (La. App. 2009) (contempt remedy vindicates court dignity; trial court discretion reviewed for abuse)
- Fradella v. Rowell, 147 So.3d 817 (La. App. 2014) (appellate standard for contempt review)
- Mizell v. Mizell, 839 So.2d 1222 (La. App. 2003) (contempt proceedings and appellate review standard)
- Rodock v. Pommier, 225 So.3d 512 (La. App. 2017) (discretion to grant relief against recalcitrant party in contempt)
- LeJeune v. Lafayette Tower Serv., 653 So.2d 112 (La. App. 1995) (discretionary contempt relief standard)
- Dugas v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 839 So.2d 1205 (La. App. 2003) (appellee who neither appeals nor answers is not entitled to appellate attorney fees)
- Hebert v. Hebert, 351 So.2d 1199 (La. 1977) (written judgment controls over inconsistent oral ruling)