Opinion
2014 CA 0256
09-25-2014
JOSH BECK v. CRYSTAL COX
C. Glenn Westmoreland Livingston, Louisiana Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Josh Beck Erika W. Sledge Denham Springs, Louisiana Counsel for Defendant/Appellee Crystal Cox
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Livingston State of Louisiana
No.129097
Honorable Brenda Bedsole Ricks, Judge Presiding C. Glenn Westmoreland
Livingston, Louisiana
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Josh Beck
Erika W. Sledge
Denham Springs, Louisiana
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Crystal Cox
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
McCLENDON, J.
This is an appeal from a trial court judgment finding the plaintiff in contempt of court for his failure to pay child support and finding him in arrears in the amount of $48,153.89. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Josh Beck and Crystal Cox were never married, but are the natural parents of two minor children, F.B., born on October 22, 2003, and K.B., born on February 4, 2005. Prior to any court proceedings for custody of the children, Ms. Cox filed for child support through the State of Louisiana, Child Support Division (the State), in the 21st Judicial District Court for the Parish of Livingston. In a judgment signed on October 17, 2007, Mr. Beck was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,127.00 per month. On June 4, 2010, Ms. Cox notified the State that she wished to close her case against Mr. Beck for child support. The reason given for the closure was that she had made an agreement with Mr. Beck and forgiven all arrears through that date.
On June 24, 2010, Mr. Beck filed a Petition for Custody with Request for Ex-Parte Relief. In his petition, Mr. Beck alleged that there were no previous judgments of custody or visitation regarding the minor children, that Ms. Cox was unable to provide a stable or healthy environment for the children and that he had maintained physical custody of the children since May 12, 2010. He further alleged that it was in the best interest of the children that he be granted the temporary and, after a hearing, the permanent care, custody, and control of the children, subject to the reasonable visitation of Ms. Cox. The trial court signed an ex-parte order granting Mr. Beck the temporary custody of the minor children and assigning a hearing date of July 26, 2010. The matter was continued, and on November 23, 2010, the parties entered into a Stipulated Judgment that was signed by the trial court on that date. In the Stipulated Judgment, the parties agreed to a joint custody arrangement in which visitation was on an alternating week-to-week basis. The judgment made no reference to child support.
The Stipulated Judgment did provide that "Josh Beck shall take all necessary steps to have Crystal Cox certified with the Department of Health and Hospitals and/or Medicaid and/or any other agency(ies) to receive all benefits due their minor children, including an activated Medicaid card and food stamps."
On September 14, 2012, Ms. Cox filed a Rule for Contempt, requesting that Mr. Beck be held in contempt for his failure to pay his child support obligation in accordance with the October 17, 2007 judgment, that Mr. Beck pay Ms. Cox's attorney fees and costs, and that all amounts due and owing be made executory and payable to Ms. Cox.
The matter was submitted to the trial court on memoranda, with supporting affidavits. On August 15, 2013, the trial court issued Reasons for Judgment, adopting the arguments submitted on behalf of Ms. Cox and, accordingly, granting her rule for contempt. A final judgment was signed on October 21, 2013, finding Mr. Beck in contempt of court for failing to pay his child support obligation as ordered, ordering him to pay all costs and $1,000.00 in attorney fees, and making executory the back due child support in the amount of $48,153.89, together with legal interest, for the period of June 19, 2010 through September 30, 2013. Mr. Beck appealed.
DISCUSSION
The decision to hold a party in contempt of court for disobeying the court's orders is within the trial court's great discretion, and the court's decision should only be reversed when the appellate court discerns an abuse of that discretion. Boudreaux v. Vankerkhove, 07-2555 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/11/08), 993 So.2d 725, 733. However, the trial court's predicate factual determinations are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review. See Rogers v. Dickens, 06-0898 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/9/07), 959 So.2d 940, 945.
In his sole assignment of error, Mr. Beck asserts that the trial court erred when it found him in contempt of court for failing to pay child support, ordering him to pay costs and attorney fees, and when it made executory all sums of past due child support. Mr. Beck maintains that the Stipulated Judgment signed by the parties modified and terminated the previous child support judgment as a matter of law or, alternatively, that the parties agreed to an extrajudicial modification of the judgment. Conversely, Ms. Cox contends that she did not enter into any agreement with Mr. Beck to take less child support, or no child support, as Mr. Beck alleged. She avers that she only waived the arrears up to June 4, 2010.
In Louisiana, the general rule is that a child support judgment remains in full force until the party ordered to pay it has the judgment modified, reduced, or terminated by a court. Halcomb v. Halcomb, 352 So.2d 1013, 1015-17 (La. 1977). However, our courts have recognized that a judgment awarding child support can be extrajudicially modified by agreement of the parties. Palmer v. Palmer, 95-0608 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/9/95), 665 So.2d 48, 50-51. Such an agreement must meet the requisites of a conventional obligation and the evidence must establish that the parties have clearly agreed to waive or otherwise modify the court-ordered payments. Dubroc v. Dubroc, 388 So.2d 377, 380 (La. 1980); Trisler v. Trisler, 622 So.2d 730, 731 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the agreement must foster the continued support and upbringing of the child; it must not interrupt the child's maintenance or upbringing, or otherwise work to his detriment. Dubroc, 388 So.2d at 380. The party seeking to modify the obligation under the judgment has the burden of proving the existence of such an agreement. Serrate v. Serrate, 96-1545 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/20/96), 684 So.2d 1128, 1131; Trisler, 622 So.2d at 731.
Louisiana courts have also recognized a second jurisprudential exception in cases where although there may not have been a clear agreement concerning the modification of child support, the obligation was suspended by implied agreement, where the mother voluntarily delivered the physical custody of the child or children to the father for a substantial period of time who provided directly for their support. In such cases, an implied agreement has been deemed to exist, due to the mutual understanding between the parents that the father would assume sole responsibility for feeding, clothing, and sheltering the child or children in his care. See Palmer, 665 So.2d at 51. However, this exception does not apply here.
--------
In support of his argument, Mr. Beck submitted the affidavits of his parents, Becky Beck and Mike Beck, in which they each attested that while negotiating the Stipulated Judgment, Mike Beck had a conversation with Ms. Cox's representative, regarding Mr. Beck transferring any and all Medicaid or other agency benefits he received from the State to Ms. Cox in lieu of child support.
Ms. Cox submitted her own affidavit, as well as the affidavits of John Paul Charbonnet and Suellyn Charbonnet, her representatives, which, she asserts, clearly show that she never agreed to modify or forgo child support after June 4, 2010. Ms. Cox attested that during the negotiations regarding the periods of physical custody that each parent would have, there was never any agreement that Mr. Beck's child support obligation would be reduced or eliminated at any time after June 4, 2010. The Charbonnets attested similarly and further stated that had such an agreement been made it would have been contained in the Stipulated Judgment.
After considering the record and the memoranda of the parties, the trial court adopted the arguments of Ms. Cox as its reasons for judgment. Accordingly, the trial court granted the rule for contempt filed by Ms. Cox.
The Stipulated Judgment regarding custody made no reference to child support. Therefore, the October 17, 2007 judgment obligating Mr. Beck to pay child support remained in effect unless it was modified by agreement of the parties. See Palmer, 665 So.2d at 50-51. Mr. Beck maintains that the parties made an extrajudicial agreement that child support was no longer owed. However, the burden was on him to prove such an agreement. Upon our review of the record, we agree with the trial court that Mr. Beck failed to carry his burden. While there may have been discussions regarding Ms. Cox accepting Medicaid or other agency benefits in lieu of support, the record does not clearly establish that she agreed to same.
Accordingly, we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion in finding Mr. Beck in contempt of court for failing to pay his child support obligation, nor do we find error by the trial court in making executory the back due child support in the amount of $48,153.89, together with legal interest, for the period of June 19, 2010, through September 30, 2013.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons assigned herein, the judgment of October 21, 2013, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed to the plaintiff, Josh Beck.
AFFIRMED.