155 So. 3d 70
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Hatfield (George) and Holley (Natalie) married May 1995 and divorced Aug 1997; two children now ages 18 and 17.
- 1978 and 1998 child support order existed; it remained unmodified until Jan 2010.
- 2010 request to modify child support to Webster Parish Support Enforcement Office; matter transferred to district court for financial discovery; special master Susan Whitelaw, CPA, appointed; mental health professional Durrell Tuberville appointed for custodial matters.
- April 25, 2013 judgment ordered production of financial documents by Defendant; in default, imputed Defendant’s annual income at $100,000 for child support calculations; trial court reserved other sanctions.
- September 19, 2018 trial addressed modification and contempt; court found noncompliance, imputed $100,000 income, awarded attorney fees ($8,500), special master fees ($4,700), medical/other reimbursements, and set ongoing child support at $1,200/month.
- Notice of appeal: Defendant challenges the sanctions and final child support calculation; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was imputing $100,000 annual income an abuse of discretion? | Hatfield argues sanction appropriate. | Hatfield contends sanction overly harsh and unreliable. | No abuse; sanction affirmed. |
| Is the final child support calculation supported by the record? | Hatfield relies on imputed income complying with guidelines. | Hatfield alleges miscalculation from imputing income. | Calculation upheld; supported by record. |
| Were the attorney and special master fees an abuse of discretion? | Hatfield argues sanctions appropriate given discovery failures. | Hatfield claims fees excessive or unwarranted. | Not an abuse; fees affirmed. |
| Are other sanctions and arrears properly ordered and tied to discovery misconduct? | Hatfield emphasizes lengthy litigation and discovery efforts. | Hatfield disputes extent of sanctions and arrears. | Sanctions and arrears affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- L & M Hair Products, Inc. v. State, Dep’t. of Transp. and Dev., 704 So.2d 415 (La.App.2d Cir. 1997) (courts grant broad discretion in discovery sanctions)
- Frederick v. Buckingham, 15 So.3d 1223 (La.App.2d Cir. 2009) (deference to trial court in determining child support issues)
- State ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson, 855 So.2d 913 (La.App.2d Cir. 2003) (appellate review of sanctions and support orders)
- Harper v. Harper, 764 So.2d 1186 (La.App.2d Cir. 2000) (guidelines and discretion in child support matters)