Dejoie v. Guidry
71 So. 3d 1111
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- David Guidry appeals a June 3, 2010 judgment increasing his child support from $1,000 to $4,017 monthly retroactive to the filing of the modification request.
- The original 2004 consent judgment set Guidry’s adjusted gross income at $10,053 with Ava Dejoie’s income at $3,852, guiding a $1,000 monthly obligation.
- Dejoie filed in 2007 to modify, contesting Guidry’s income and alleging a material change in circumstances; trial spanned over three days across three years due to delays and arrearages issues.
- The trial court found Guidry’s current gross income at trial to be about $47,494 and Dejoie’s at $6,000, with combined income of $52,394, yielding a material change.
- The court considered Guidry’s in-kind benefits (company cars, housing) and corporate deductions to determine gross income, rejecting accelerated depreciation but permitting non-accelerated depreciation discussions.
- Guidry argues for de novo income calculation and challenges the trial court’s method for setting the basic child support, despite the combined income exceeding the top guideline level.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a material change in circumstances. | Guidry contends no material change occurred. | Dejoie argues Guidry’s income substantially increased, changing circumstances. | Yes; court affirmed material change. |
| How Guidry’s gross income should be determined. | Guidry argues only salaries should count; others should be disregarded or treated differently. | Dejoie contends all sources, including in-kind benefits and closely held corp. deductions, must be included. | Income includes all sources and qualified in-kind payments; non-accelerated depreciation allowed, accelerations excluded. |
| Whether the trial court’s method of calculating income was legally erroneous and merits de novo review. | Guidry claims the court invalidly averaged conflicting figures; seeks de novo determination. | Dejoie argues the method was appropriate and not prejudicial. | No de novo review required; method reasonable and non-prejudicial. |
| Whether the amount of the basic child support award was an abuse of discretion. | Guidry argues the court used a formulaic extrapolation rather than discretion. | Dejoie contends discretion was properly used given excess combined income. | No abuse of discretion; amount not excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (legal-error standard for de novo review in child support)
- Rosenbloom v. Rosenbloom, 654 So.2d 877 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1995) (abuse of discretion when extrapolated formula ignores needs)
- Stogner v. Stogner, 739 So.2d 762 (La. 1999) (reliance on prior judgments in modification context)
- Langley v. Langley, 982 So.2d 881 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2008) (child support factors and lifestyle considerations)
- Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257 (La. 1993) (highly deferential standard for fact-finder discretion)
- Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., 36 So.3d 1046 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2010) (affirming deferential review of trial court’s discretion)