McClanahan v. McClanahan
169 So. 3d 587
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Marriage February 23, 1988; daughter Elizabeth born June 1, 1989.
- Divorce filed March 25, 1998; divorce judgment January 21, 1999.
- Interim agreement (1998) established interim child and spousal support not by judgment.
- Community property partition judgment rendered March 5, 2002; appealed and partially modified.
- Support trial conducted 2002–2003; final judgment June 20, 2007; retroactive to March 28, 2003.
- Motions for new trial filed; 2013 ruling amended retroactivity to June 20, 2007; affirmed as amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion setting child support | McClanahan argues income underreported; guidelines should cap at $652. | Folse contends court properly used evidence of needs and abilities; excess income amounts justified. | No abuse; award affirmed. |
| Whether final periodic spousal support is proper and amount appropriate | Folse should work more; support excessive given $60,000 salary. | Folse unable to work full time due to lupus; needs-based award appropriate. | Award upheld as within broad discretion. |
| Whether the effective date of awards should be retroactive | Should be February 4, 1999 (date of filing). | Interim agreement not a court judgment; retroactivity improper. | Legal error; amend to June 20, 2007 as effective date. |
| Whether interim agreement should affect retroactivity under RS 9:315.21/9:321 | Interim agreement created interim allowances; statute applicable from judgment. | Interim agreement not a judgment; rely on RS 9:315.21/9:321(B)(2). | Interim agreement constitutes enforceable contract; apply paragraphs (B)(1); retroactivity limited to 2007 date. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCorvey v. McCorvey, 922 So.2d 694 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2006) (trial court’s factual findings reviewed for manifest error in income)
- Hudnall v. Hudnall, 808 So.2d 641 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2001) (income shading cannot be used to evade child support obligations)
- Verges v. Verges, 815 So.2d 356 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2002) (trial court may reject tax returns as true income)
- Vaccari v. Vaccari, 50 So.3d 139 (La. 2010) (adds good cause to retroactivity when interim misrepresentations occur)
- Maggio v. Maggio, 981 So.2d 55 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2008) (final spousal support retroactivity limitations under RS 9:321(B)(1))
- Sawyer v. Sawyer, 799 So.2d 1226 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2001) (standard of living evidence relevant to income assessment)
- Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 668 So.2d 1269 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1996) (maintenance considers needs, not necessarily lifestyle)
- Dufresne v. Dufresne, 992 So.2d 579 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2008) (maintenance must be for maintenance, not perpetuation of lifestyle)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (deference to trial court findings on related issues)
- Stobart v. State through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) (factual findings reviewed for manifest error)