Chauvin v. Chauvin
69 So. 3d 1192
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Aaron and Michelle Chauvin married in 1996; two children; separated in 2002; divorce 2003; joint custody with Michelle domicile parent and father with visitation; initial child support set at $700/month.
- February 2005 modification increased child support to $950/month; required health insurance with 50% copays; 65/35 split for uncovered expenses; shared private school and aftercare costs.
- Defendant historically manipulated the child-support amounts to reflect a 65/35 split in health-insurance costs; kept a handwritten log of adjustments.
- From Sept 2005 to Aug 2007 defendant paid $1,033.42 monthly including health-insurance portions; in Dec 2007 health-insurance premium rose and he deducted 35% of the premium from support through Nov 2008.
- Sept 2007 plaintiff lost employer health insurance; December 2007 defendant obtained coverage but began deducting 35% of the premium; February 2009 plaintiff enrolled children in LaCHIP after losing income; defendant stopped providing health insurance.
- December 2009 consent judgment increased retroactive child support to 2009; clarified expenses to be split under 315.6; August 2010 contempt hearing found arrearage of $9,938.79 and contempt; 90-day jail sentence suspended on payment within 180 days; $8,000 in attorney fees; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a valid extrajudicial modification of health-insurance obligation | Chauvin argues parties agreed to 65/35 premium split; modification effective without writing. | Chauvin claims years of practice and emails show 65/35 split began after 2003; no written agreement. | No clear, credible extrajudicial modification; trial court correct to uphold original duty to provide health insurance. |
| Whether defendant's contempt for past-due support was willful | Chauvin knowingly disobeyed court orders by not paying arrearage. | Disobedience was not willful due to disputed health-insurance amounts. | Court did not abuse discretion; defendant knowingly disobeyed and is in contempt. |
| Whether the 315.6 expenses were properly ordered to be split | Expenses for academic, athletic, social, cultural development properly added and split 65/35. | Trial court lacked authority to modify prior award since modification wasn’t before court. | Properly clarified and ordered to be split; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether attorney-fee award was proper | RS 9:375 allows fees to prevailing party when past-due support is executory; no good cause to deny. | Belief in modification of insurance costs constitutes good cause to avoid fees. | No abuse; $8,000 was reasonable and supported by need to hire counsel. |
| Whether the evidentiary value of plaintiff's payment proofs was proper | Exhibits and records sufficiently prove payments and expenses. | Copies and receipts are inadequate proof without cancelled checks. | Trial court vested discretion; exhibits were sufficient proof of payments and expenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Halcomb v. Halcomb, 352 So. 2d 1013 (La. 1977) (child-support modification requires clear modification by court or agreement)
- Vallaire v. Vallaire, 433 So. 2d 315 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983) (strict standard for waiving child support)
- Dubroc v. Dubroc, 388 So. 2d 377 (La. 1980) (mere acquiescence not waiver)
- Stobart v. State DOTD, 617 So. 2d 880 (La. 1993) (appellate review must avoid reweighing facts; manifest error standard)
- Statham v. Statham, 986 So. 2d 894 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2008) (deference to trial court in domestic-relations findings)
- Howard v. Oden, 5 So. 3d 989 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2009) (willful disobedience and contempt standards)
- Baker v. Baker, 960 So. 2d 1264 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2007) (discretion in contempt and fee awards)
- New v. New, 631 So. 2d 1183 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1994) (contempt and modification considerations)