83 So. 3d 168
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Reynold and Nicole Hernandez divorced in 2009 under a consent judgment assigning joint physical custody and no ongoing child support, with shared responsibility for tuition and related costs.
- In 2010 Reynold filed a motion to decrease and modify child support, alleging increased expenses, Nicole's higher income, and the need to discontinue private school tuition sharing.
- A 2010 hearing led the trial court to find a material change in circumstances and to order Nicole to pay Reynold $209.96 monthly in child support beginning January 2011; tuition and related costs were to no longer be shared.
- The trial court cited increased transportation and health insurance costs borne by Reynold, increased tuition and related expenses, and Nicole’s higher income as a basis for modification under the Louisiana Child Support Guidelines for shared custody.
- Nicole challenged both the existence of a material change and the decision not to include private school costs in the basic support calculation; the majority affirmed the judgment, while a partial dissent would have included private school tuition in the base obligation.
- The appeal record shows that the dissenters emphasized the rehabilitative purpose of private school expenses and insisted on shared responsibility for tuition under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Material change in circumstances warranted modification | Reynold proved increased costs and depleted savings. | Nicole argues no material change since the consent judgment. | Yes; court found a material change supporting modification. |
| Private school expenses should be included in basic support | Nicole argues these costs should continue to be shared. | Reynold contended they should not be included after modification. | No; expenses not included in base support under the ruling. |
| Proper application of shared custody guidelines | Guidelines should govern award and adjustments. | Discretionary deviations must be manifestly erroneous to reverse. | Guidelines properly applied; deviation not shown to be manifestly erroneous. |
| Factual support for the court’s findings | Findings supported by evidence of increased costs and income disparity. | Record insufficient to negate trial court’s discretion. | Yes; findings are not clearly wrong. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. Hall, 67 So.3d 685 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2011) (standard of review for child support decisions; two-part factual review; deference to trial court)
- Carmouche v. Carmouche, 869 So.2d 224 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2004) (guidelines application; child support deviations not overturned absent manifest error)
- State, D.S.S. ex rel. D.F. v. L.T., 934 So.2d 687 (La. 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for deviations from guidelines)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for reviewing factual findings; manifest error)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La.1987) (first prong of factual sufficiency review; reasonable factual basis required)
- Sistler v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 558 So.2d 1106 (La.1990) (when two permissible views exist, choose non-manifestly erroneous)
- Stobart v. State, DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (reaffirms deferential standard to trial court in factual determinations)