Flemming v. Flemming, 114 So. 3d 1285

Debra Flemming appeals a trial court judgment nullifying the June 22, 2000 permanent spousal-support judgment against James Flemming.
The parties married in 1996, separated in 1998, and divorced in 2000; James moved to Illinois after divorce proceedings.
The June 22, 2000 hearing awarded Debra permanent spousal support of $1,100 per month; service to James was defective.
In 2011, Debra obtained a back-due support judgment and fees, and James was found in contempt; a June 24, 2011 compromise terminated future support subject to conditions.
In 2011–2012, James sought to nullify and then Debra sought reconsideration; the trial court denied new-trial relief, and Debra appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the June 22, 2000 judgment a nullity for lack of service?	Flemming asserts no nullity; service defect violated due process.	Flemming contends lack of service is insufficient for nullity due to acquiescence defenses.	No nullity; issues of acquiescence control.
Did James' post-judgment conduct amount to voluntary acquiescence under Art. 2003?	James’ continued participation and response actions show acquiescence.	James disputes that later actions constitute acquiescence to nullify the judgment.	Yes, voluntary acquiescence; reinstatement of the June 22, 2000 judgment.

Hooper v. Hooper, 941 So.2d 726 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2006) (de novo review for legal questions in family-law appeals)
Lassere v. State, Dept. for Health & Hospitals, 808 So.2d 513 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2001) (notice and due process considerations in finality actions)
Custom Acceptance Corp. v. Paul, 376 So.2d 510 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1979) (response to orders without consent involves acquiescence analysis)
Donnelly v. Quatroy, 866 So.2d 917 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (mere inaction insufficient for acquiescence)