Hedlesky v. Hedlesky
166 So. 3d 1221
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Ms. Williams appeals a contempt judgment for non-payment of child support by Dr. Hedlesky.
- Emily Hedlesky was born during the marriage; she is the child subject to the support order.
- Dr. Hedlesky’s child support for Emily was set at $3,761 per month beginning Sept. 25, 2010.
- A partition judgment in Dec. 2013 awarded Dr. Hedlesky $263,485.10 against Ms. Williams.
- Since March 27, 2014, Hedlesky offset child support payments against the partition debt and stopped paying after May 2014; Ms. Williams filed contempt July 15, 2014; contempt proceedings were denied Sept. 29, 2014 and culminated in a November 5, 2014 judgment which Williams appealed.
- The appellate court reverses and remands for proceedings consistent with its ruling that self-help offsets against child support are improper and must be judicially determined.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hedlesky’s one-sided offset of child support constitutes contempt. | Williams argues self-help to offset child support is impermissible. | Hedlesky contends the Saunier framework allows offsetting obligations via compensation. | Saunier not controlling; self-help improper; must be judicially determined. |
| Whether Saunier v. Saunier supports a 100% offset of child support to satisfy a debt to a spouse. | Williams contends Saunier allows offset against a community-property claim. | Hedlesky argues offset is permissible under Saunier. | Saunier distinguishable; 100% offset of child support not allowed. |
| Whether modern child-support statutes require a hearing and prevent unilateral reductions. | Statutes protect child support and require judicial process for changes. | Dr. Hedlesky relied on offset/earlier rules. | Statutes protect the child; unilateral self-help is improper. |
| Whether the trial court should have applied current law to prevent inequitable results. | Offsetting child support to pay a spouse’s debt harms the child. | Hedlesky’s offset was argued as permissible compensation. | Lower court erred; Saunier inapplicable; remand for contempt proceedings. |
| Whether the case should be remanded to address contempt under proper legal standards. | Contempt should be determined under current law and proper procedures. | — | Remand for contempt determination consistent with statutory protections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saunier v. Saunier, 217 La. 607, 47 So.2d 19 (La. 1950) (offset not to the prejudice of a child; distinguishable from child support context)
- Dubroc v. Dubroc, 388 So.2d 377 (La. 1980) (parental duty to support arises from parentage; courts protect child support rights)
- Halcomb v. Halcomb, 352 So.2d 1013 (La. 1977) (unilateral reduction of support generally barred; seek modification via courts)
- Guidry v. Guidry, 535 So.2d 1272 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1988) (emphasizes court process and avoidance of self-help in support modifications)
- McDaniel v. McDaniel, 878 So.2d 686 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2004) (contempt for unilateral reduction of child support reaffirmed)