82 So. 3d 565
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Charles Sicard petitioned for divorce from Carol Sicard; Carole sought spousal support.
- Consent Judgment on final support was prepared; Charles signed it after a meeting with Carole’s counsel.
- Consent Judgment was filed and Charles began paying the described support obligations.
- Charles later sought nullity of the Judgment, alleging ill practices and coercion; Carole moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and later awarded Carole attorney’s fees; Charles appeals.
- Appellate court affirms summary judgment, reverses attorney’s fees award, and remands for fee determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is no genuine issue of material fact on nullity claim | Sicard argued fraud/ill practice existed; transcript shows coercion and failed discovery. | Sicard contends no genuine issue; transcript supports enforceability of consent and lack of ill practice. | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine issue on ill practice/fraud. |
| Whether the consent judgment could be nullified due to misrepresentations or coercion | Sicard asserts lack of informed consent and duress invalidates the judgment. | Sicard argues no coercion; transcript shows voluntary participation and lack of attorney review. | No genuine issue; consent judgment remains valid. |
| Whether attorney’s fees awarded were proper without a hearing | Sicard contends the fee award lacks a hearing as required. | Carole argues statutory allowance for fees applies; record sufficient for award. | Fees award reversed and remanded for proper consideration and hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. Bantek West, Inc., 885 So.2d 1241 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard and burden of proof on mover)
- Haley v. Roberts, 820 So.2d 1114 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2002) (de novo review of summary judgments)
- JCM Const. Co., Inc. v. Orleans Parish School Bd., 860 So.2d 610 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2003) (affidavits must show admissible facts; conclusory statements inadequate on summary judgment)
- Rivet v. State, Dep’t. of Transp. and Dev., 680 So.2d 1154 (La. 1996) (factors for reasonableness of attorney’s fees)