136 So. 3d 173
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Jules and Mary Fontana divorced after a long marriage; four children were born, two are minors at issue. The parties had entered an interim consent judgment in March 2011 requiring Jules to pay certain enumerated household expenses plus a $2,750 monthly cash payment.
- Trial on spousal support, child support, and contempt took place November 27, 2012; final judgment entered February 25, 2013.
- Trial court awarded Mary three years of rehabilitative spousal support ($3,369.50/month, later amended by the court of appeal), child support for two minors ($4,176.59/month), made $3,940 in alleged past-due reimbursements executory, found Jules in contempt for failure to pay support, and awarded $1,500 in attorney’s fees and $87 costs.
- Mary inherited substantial assets (Merrill Lynch accounts, proceeds from estate and sale) but testified she had little liquid cash and modest annual distributions from the inherited IRA; her current income was largely seasonal/part‑time.
- Jules is a high‑income attorney (draws over $300,000/year; expert annualized figures ranged ~$346k–$407k). Expert CPA prepared a household expense spreadsheet (MF‑2) relied on by the trial court for support amounts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mary) | Defendant's Argument (Fontana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rehabilitative spousal support — entitlement and duration | Mary: needs support; minimal income and limited liquid assets; seeks 3 years to obtain training. | Jules: Mary has substantial inherited assets and imprudently spent them; income should be imputed; trial court awarded lifestyle rather than necessities. | Court: Mary proved need and rehabilitative support for 3 years appropriate; reduced award amount by excluding certain lifestyle expenses; amended award to $2,990.77/month. |
| Spousal support — proper calculation (expenses included) | Mary: Spreadsheet reflects actual, reasonable monthly needs; attorney fees and some items appropriate. | Jules: Spreadsheet includes lifestyle/miscellaneous items that should be excluded. | Court: Excluded specified lifestyle/misc. items totaling $378.73 and adjusted monthly award accordingly. |
| Child support — methodology and amount in high‑income case | Mary: Spreadsheet expense-based figure reflects children’s needs; trial court may use discretion in high-income cases. | Jules: Spreadsheet double-counted or included items not for children; shared‑custody credit and imputation to Mary should reduce his obligation. | Court: Accepted Spreadsheet as base in this high‑income case and affirmed $4,176.59/month; declined to impute additional income to Mary or treat matter as shared‑custody under statute given record uncertainty. |
| Contempt and making arrearages executory | Mary: Jules failed to timely pay reimbursements and cash payments; moved to make past due support executory and for contempt. | Jules: Payments were historically paid on 15th (custom), late payment was six days; consent judgment obligates him to pay listed expenses but does not set reimbursement deadlines. | Court: Reversed contempt finding and reversal of making reimbursements executory; six‑day late cash payment and lack of fixed reimbursement timing did not show willful disobedience. Attorney fees/costs tied to contempt reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zatzkis v. Zatzkis, 632 So.2d 307 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (defines "in need of support" / necessitous circumstances)
- Musselman v. Musselman, 524 So.2d 90 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (discusses necessitous circumstances)
- Vorisek v. Vorisek, 423 So.2d 758 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (definitions on need/means)
- Sercovich v. Sercovich, 96 So.3d 600 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (assets considered as means for support)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 117 So.3d 208 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (maintenance items may include internet/cable)
- Falterman v. Falterman, 726 So.2d 1023 (La. App. 5th Cir.) (rule of reasonableness before depleting assets)
- Hagen v. Hagen, 110 So.3d 172 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (methodology for determining child support in high‑income cases)
- Serrate v. Serrate, 684 So.2d 1128 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (no universal formula for high‑income child support; discretion required)
- Smith v. Pillow‑Smith, 52 So.3d 264 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (contumacious failure to pay support requires intentional, willful disobedience)