Guste v. Guste
217 So. 3d 542
La. Ct. App.2017Background
- Christi R. Guste and Bernard Guste, Jr. divorced after marriage in 2010; at trial they had two young children.
- Petition for divorce and disputes over custody and child support were filed in 2014; parties entered a March 5, 2015 consent judgment ordering interim support ($600/month + $500/month tuition).
- Trial occurred June–August 2015; final judgment (Sept. 23, 2015) awarded joint/shared custody with equal physical custody and ordered Mr. Guste to pay $533.70/month child support.
- Disputed issues on appeal: whether the trial court properly allowed depreciation deductions in calculating Mr. Guste’s income, the method of calculating his gross income, retroactivity of child support, reimbursement for private school tuition, and exclusion of certain custody-evaluator medical records.
- Trial court accepted Mr. Guste’s testimony that property depreciation was straight-line and used paystubs/W-2s to compute income; the court declined to make the final support award retroactive beyond the interim order and did not include private school tuition in the basic support obligation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guste) | Defendant's Argument (Guste, Jr.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depreciation deduction | Trial court wrongly allowed depreciation, artificially reducing income | Depreciation was straight-line (non-accelerated) and properly deductible | Court upheld allowance of straight-line depreciation; no abuse of discretion |
| Income calculation method | Court miscalculated bank commission income; should use different averaging | Court reasonably used two paystubs, multiplied pay period, and considered W-2s and side business income | Court affirmed the trial court’s method; not manifestly erroneous |
| Retroactivity of child support | Final support should be retroactive to date of judicial demand | Interim consent order provided support and tax-refund stipulation; trial court may limit retroactivity | Court affirmed denial of broader retroactivity given interim support and stipulations |
| Private school tuition reimbursement | Trial court should have included/ordered reimbursement of private tuition | Parties had agreed on schools and interim order addressed tuition; court need not add tuition to base obligation | Court declined to add private tuition to basic support; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of custody-evaluator medical records | Records certified under La. R.S. 13:3714(A) should be admitted as prima facie proof | Trial court excluded records; evaluator testified and was cross-examined | Appeal waived review because Guste did not proffer the excluded records; court declined to address error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bickham v. Bickham, 58 So.3d 950 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (child support guidelines allocate obligations by parents’ ability and children’s needs)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.) (appellate review limited by manifest error/abuse of discretion standard)
- Riggs v. LaJaunie, 720 So.2d 114 (La. App. 3 Cir.) (burden on parent claiming depreciation to show nonuse of accelerated depreciation)
- Dejoie v. Guidry, 71 So.3d 1111 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (straight-line depreciation may be considered an ordinary and necessary expense)
- Thomey v. Thomey, 756 So.2d 698 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (treatment of depreciation in income calculations)
- A.S. v. D.S., 165 So.3d 247 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (trial court discretion on adding private school tuition to child support)
- Williams v. Williams, 899 So.2d 628 (La. App. 4 Cir.) (standard for adding tuition to support)
- Sher v. Lafayette Ins. Co., 988 So.2d 186 (La.) (need to proffer excluded evidence on appeal)
- Galloway v. Lolley, 17 So.3d 479 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (same on preservation of evidentiary issues)
Affirmed.