170 So. 3d 1163
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Craig James and Shameka Lavigne married in 2008; one child born in 2011. Divorce action filed in 2013.
- Parties entered interim stipulated judgment: shared custody and interim child support ($500.59/mo) with arrearage payments.
- Trial court (July 2014) awarded joint custody, designated Lavigne domiciliary parent, and ordered James to pay $1,109.96/month child support plus additional monthly payments to satisfy arrears.
- Trial court found James’s business (Sparkling Touch, LLC) gross receipts high but many claimed business expenses were personal or unsupported, and therefore added back into his income.
- Trial court determined Lavigne entitled to claim the child for income tax purposes; James was in arrears and thus could not claim the dependency exemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (Lavigne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of child support — proper measure of gross income and deduction of business expenses | Trial court failed to deduct ordinary and necessary business expenses from gross receipts; did not account for loss of income from losing a major contract | Trial court properly disallowed personal/unsupported expenses and used evidence to calculate adjusted gross income; future contract loss speculative | Affirmed — trial court’s factual findings on income and expense disallowances not manifestly erroneous; support amount upheld |
| Tax dependency exemption | Once arrears are paid, James should be allowed to claim the child; trial court erred by awarding Lavigne the deduction "every year" | Under La. R.S. 9:315.18(B)(1), obligor owing arrears is not entitled to the deduction; Lavigne entitled to claim while arrears exist | Affirmed — James admitted arrears; he may move to modify after arrears satisfied, but no error in current award to Lavigne |
Key Cases Cited
- Rutland v. Rutland, 121 So.3d 776 (5th Cir. La.) (child support award entitled to great weight)
- Ficarra v. Ficarra, 88 So.3d 548 (5th Cir. La.) (factual determinations not reversed absent manifest error)
- Scott v. Scott, 989 So.2d 290 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (distinction between salary and business receipts; owner cannot avoid support by manipulating corporate salary)
- Dejoie v. Guidry, 71 So.3d 1111 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (burden on party claiming ordinary and necessary business expense deductions)
- McClanahan v. McClanahan, 169 So.3d 587 (La. App. 5th Cir.) (district court financial findings will not be disturbed absent manifest error)