State of Tennessee, ex rel., Deedra Climer Bass v. Jose Ramon Gonzalez-Perez
W2016-00655-COA-R3-JV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | May 19, 2017Background
- Father (Jose Gonzalez-Perez) is a quadriplegic who receives Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act benefits via an annuity/trust established after a 2002 work injury.
- Original child support was set in 1998; modified in 2005 to $203/month plus $25 toward arrears; Father made little or no payment from 2008 until a $5,000 purge payment in December 2014.
- The State (Title IV-D) filed contempt proceedings for non-payment; a magistrate found Father in contempt and ordered an income assignment from an annuity; Father sought rehearing before the Juvenile Court.
- Trustee testified Father receives about $2,247/month from the trust and that the trustee pays Father’s living expenses and places funds aside for home repairs.
- The Juvenile Court (March 7, 2016) found Father willfully failed to pay child support, had present ability to pay (based on trust/annuity receipts), and reaffirmed contempt; Father appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §916 exemption (Longshore Act) prevents contempt/enforcement or use of benefits to show ability to pay | State: §916 does not prevent considering benefits as resources for child support or contempt determinations | Father: §916 makes benefits exempt from claims, levy, attachment, so they cannot be used to collect child support or to find contempt | Held: §916 prevents levy/attachment but does not preclude treating benefits as income/resources; Father may be held in contempt and benefits considered for ability to pay |
| Whether federal law (Commerce/Supremacy/Longshore Act) preempts Tennessee child-support/garnishment law | State: No federal preemption; Tennessee rules may consider benefits as income | Father: Federal statutes and constitutional commerce powers preempt state collection/assignment and prevent contempt based on these federally exempt benefits | Held: No preemption; Father waived constitutional challenge; federal law does not bar Tennessee from using benefits to calculate support or hold contempt |
| Whether Father’s lack of employment or disability defeats contempt because he lacks ability to pay | State: Ability to pay can be shown by non-employment income or resources; once nonpayment proven, burden shifts to Father to show inability to pay | Father: He has no earned income and is disabled, so he cannot be held in contempt | Held: Disability or lack of employment does not shield him; trustee testimony showed available monthly funds, and Father failed to prove inability to pay |
| Correctness of arrearage calculation and enforceability of support order | State: 2005 order remained in effect; arrears continued to accrue and are enforceable; annuity payments are assignable for support | Father: Prior 2011 contempt dismissal and §916 exemption mean arrears should be zero or not collectible | Held: 2005 order valid; arrears remain; §916 does not forgive arrears or prevent consideration of benefits; Juvenile Court’s arrears finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 27 S.W.3d 900 (Tenn. 2000) (workers' compensation payments may be included in gross income under Child Support Guidelines; assignment/exemption and income concept distinct)
- Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1987) (Veterans' benefits exemption does not preempt state-court contempt enforcement for child support)
- Konvalinka v. Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth., 249 S.W.3d 346 (Tenn. 2008) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
- Black v. Blount, 938 S.W.2d 394 (Tenn. 1996) (civil contempt is coercive, remedial; contemnor may purge by compliance)