249 So. 3d 932
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- January Lingo filed for divorce Sept. 28, 2015; HOC held Nov. 9, 2015; HOCR issued Nov. 17, 2015 recommending joint custody (January domiciliary) and $600/month child support retroactive to judicial demand.
- Carl’s counsel sent a Nov. 19 letter advising he intended to object to portions of the HOCR but requested time (after Thanksgiving) to file formal written objections; copies were faxed to the hearing officer and opposing counsel.
- The trial court signed an interim order adopting the HOCR on Nov. 30, 2015. Formal written objections were filed into the record Dec. 9, 2015 (20 days after HOCR delivery).
- Over the following year, counsel changed, trial dates were reset, divorce was granted Dec. 12, 2016, and a successor judge raised that Carl’s written objections were untimely under the local 7-day rule.
- January filed a motion to strike and exception of no right of action arguing Carl failed to timely file objections; the trial court granted the motion and struck the objections.
- The court of appeal reversed and remanded, concluding the parties, hearing officer, and original judge acted as if the 7-day filing requirement had been tacitly waived or extended and that denying a hearing would improperly bar access to court in a child-custody/support matter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (January) | Defendant's Argument (Carl) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Carl lost right to judicial hearing by failing to file written objections within 7 days as required by local rule | Carl did not timely file written objections; therefore no right to a hearing and objections should be stricken | The Nov.19 letter to the hearing officer and opposing counsel served as a timely written objection or at least an agreed extension; parties and court treated objections as timely | Reversed: trial court erred — parties and officials acted as if deadline was extended/tacitly waived; striking objections and denying hearing was improper |
| Whether local court rules can be strictly applied to bar access to judicial determination of custody/support | Strict application would bar judicial determination and conflict with substantive rights re: custody/support | Local rule compliance excused where opposing counsel/hearing officer acquiesced and court acted consistent with extension | Local procedural rules cannot be applied to defeat substantive rights; court relied on Rodgers/Devereux principles to protect access to court |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodgers v. Rodgers, 170 So.3d 382 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2015) (reversed dismissal of custody objections where procedural continuances and court actions constituted good cause/suspension of local deadlines)
- Devereux v. Atkins, 224 So.3d 1160 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2017) (upheld denial of dismissal where local rule should not deprive parties of judicial review in custody matters)
- Turner v. Busby, 883 So.2d 412 (La. 2004) (procedural rules exist to implement substantive rights; referenced on authority of exception of no right of action)