270 So. 3d 804
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Timothy and Christy Schmidt divorced; the March 1, 2005 stipulated judgment required each parent to pay a pro rata share of medical expenses not covered by insurance (Timothy 78%, Christy 22%) and required proof-of-payment within 60 days and reimbursement within 30 days.
- Christy filed multiple rules to show cause (2005, 2008, 2015, 2015 contempt rule filed Dec. 7, 2015) alleging Timothy failed to reimburse his share of numerous expenses for the parties’ autistic minor child.
- Trial court held a multi-day trial and found Timothy in contempt, awarding Christy $110,758.38 (Timothy’s pro rata share of medical expenses deemed medically necessary), $15,000 in attorney’s fees, and $2,470.50 costs; Timothy appealed.
- Trial court found certain therapies (Abilities speech/OT, ABA and shadows, vitamin supplements/digestive enzymes) medically necessary; it also treated other items (preschool and private school tuition, Whole Foods food purchases, trumpet lessons, post-rule invoices) as medical expenses and held Timothy in contempt for those failures to pay.
- On appeal, the court reviewed (a) whether claimed items were "medical expenses" under the consent judgment, (b) compliance with the 60-day proof-of-payment rule, and (c) whether contempt findings were supported as willful disobedience.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Christy) | Defendant's Argument (Timothy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimed items were "medical expenses" under March 1, 2005 judgment | Claimed items (Abilities, ABA, shadows, supplements, certain school-related costs, specialty food, trumpet lessons) were medically necessary and thus reimbursable | Many items are non-medical (preschool/private tuition, Whole Foods, trumpet lessons); some charges occurred after rule or lacked proof within 60 days | Court: affirm medical necessity for Abilities, ABA generally (but reimbursement limited by timing/stipulation), and supplements/enzymes; reverse characterization as medical expense for preschool, private school tuition, Whole Foods purchases, and trumpet lessons |
| Timeliness (60-day proof-of-payment requirement) and reservation in unsigned order re: ABA consultation | Christy contends she submitted required proof for many items (and preserved rights to seek judicial determination) | Timothy contends many ABA bills were never timely submitted so reimbursement barred; an unsigned later stipulation relieved him from paying certain ABA amounts until judicial determination | Held: Christy timely submitted only the $1,500 consultation fee and preschool shadow invoices for ABA; other ABA bills failed the 60-day rule; the unsigned stipulation excused Timothy from paying $1,500 and preschool shadowing was nevertheless reimbursable for timely-submitted portion; trial court erred awarding other ABA sums |
| Scope of contempt — post-rule or untimely invoices and whether contempt proceeding could encompass them | Christy sought broad reimbursement and trial court ordered determination of medical necessity at trial | Timothy argued contempt should be strictly construed and not encompass expenses outside the rule or after filing | Held: court reversed contempt findings as to post-rule invoices (e.g., Feb. 2016 consultation) and other items not in the rule or untimely; contempt upheld only for items properly within the rule and unpaid (Abilities, partial supplements/enzymes, certain ABA items as limited) |
| Attorney’s fees and costs award | Christy requested fees and costs as prevailing movant on contempt | Timothy did not meaningfully contest the fee/cost amounts on appeal | Held: Award of $15,000 attorney’s fees and $2,470.50 costs affirmed (Timothy abandoned challenge by not briefing amount) |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Graham v. Levy, 636 So.2d 287 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (contempt proceedings strictly construed)
- Leger v. Leger, 808 So.2d 632 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (trial court has great discretion to hold party in contempt)
- Rogers v. Dickens, 959 So.2d 940 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (manifest error review for factual findings underlying civil contempt)
- Welborne v. Welborne, 694 So.2d 578 (La. App. 2d Cir.) (contempt proceedings vindicate court’s dignity; not primarily for litigant’s benefit)
- Short v. Short, 105 So.3d 892 (La. App. 5th Cir.) (objectives and standards in contempt proceedings)
- Smith v. Pillow-Smith, 52 So.3d 264 (La. App. 4th Cir.) (constructive contempt requires intentional, knowing, and purposeful violation)
- Adams v. Adams, 166 So.3d 1066 (La. App. 1st Cir.) (party may waive abandonment defense by actions inconsistent with treating claims as abandoned)
- Ficarra v. Ficarra, 88 So.3d 548 (La. App. 5th Cir.) (private school tuition may be added to child support as extraordinary expense without converting it into a medical expense)