170 So. 3d 382
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- David and Leslie Rodgers divorced after marriage; four children. Hearing Officer Traylor issued a Hearing Officer Conference Report (HOCR) splitting physical custody 50/50, naming Leslie domiciliary parent, and imputing incomes to set child support of $3,300/month to David.
- Traylor imputed Leslie’s pre-resignation income ($8,500/mo) for voluntary underemployment; imputed David’s income at $25,000/mo based on inconsistent statements and lack of financial records.
- Both parties timely objected to the HOCR. The district court entered a temporary order incorporating a local Rule 35(H) 90‑day requirement: an objecting party must file a pleading requesting a trial/hearing date within 90 days or objections will be deemed abandoned and the HOCR adopted.
- David’s counsel filed three motions on November 5, 2012 (amend custody, additional mental evaluations, and a continuance). The original judge granted the amendment and continuance; a successor judge later ordered the additional evaluations and minutes indicated a hearing would be set after completion.
- No trial/hearing occurred; over 90 days elapsed after the scheduled December 3, 2012 date without an explicit pleading to re‑fix the trial date. On July 24, 2014 the court adopted the HOCR as final, deeming objections abandoned. David moved for new trial; the district court denied the motion.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the 90‑day abandonment rule was misapplied given the granted motions/continued proceedings and that the child support award rested on no admissible evidence of David’s income.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rodgers) | Defendant's Argument (Leslie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether objections to HOCR were abandoned for failure to file an "appropriate pleading" within 90 days | Rodgers: November 5 motions (amend, evaluations, continuance) satisfied the 90‑day requirement / constituted good cause to suspend the deadline | Leslie: No pleading requesting a hearing date was filed after the December 3 continuance; 90‑day rule properly enforced | Court: Held Rule 35(H) was misapplied; granted motions and subsequent court orders constituted good cause and indicated intent to await evaluations, so objections were not properly abandoned |
| Whether the district court should have adopted the HOCR without a hearing or evidence | Rodgers: Court never took evidence; he was denied judicial determination on custody/support and couldn't present income proof | Leslie: Parties had ample time; burden on Rodgers to produce income evidence; 13 months elapsed without required evaluations or proof | Court: Reversed—adopting HOCR without hearing/evidence (especially on imputed income) was improper and a miscarriage of justice |
| Whether child support imputation ($25,000/mo) was supported by admissible evidence | Rodgers: No reliable admissible proof in record to support imputation | Leslie: Imputation permissible; Rodgers failed to produce financial documentation | Court: Imputation lacked reliable admissible evidence in the record; court must have judicial oversight and articulated reasons when imputing income |
| Remedy: Whether reversal and remand required and what proceedings should follow | Rodgers: Vacate judgment; remand for hearing after completion of ordered evaluations and for full trial on custody/support | Leslie: Affirm judgment | Court: Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with March 1, 2013 order (schedule HOC/trial after evaluations); appellate costs split |
Key Cases Cited
- Unwired Telecom v. Parish of Calcasieu, 903 So.2d 392 (La. 2005) (procedural rules serve substantive rights; courts may adopt local rules consistent with law)
- Rodrigue v. Rodrigue, 591 So.2d 1171 (La. 1992) (local rules cannot conflict with legislation)
- Langford v. Langford, 138 So.3d 101 (La. 2014) (support awards require reliable evidentiary basis)
- Reggio v. Reggio, 956 So.2d 637 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2007) (child support awards cannot be based on faulty or missing evidence)
- Hatfield v. Hatfield, 155 So.3d 70 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2014) (court may impute income but must articulate reasons; discovery obligations important)