Martin v. Martin

Citations: 552 So. 2d 1292; 1989 La. App. LEXIS 2339; 1989 WL 141501Docket: No. 89-CA-285

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 14, 1989; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Mr. Martin's appeal arises from a judgment that dismissed his request to reduce child support and granted Ms. Martin's request to increase it. The procedural history includes a series of rulings beginning with the temporary custody of their son granted to Ms. Martin in March 1985, along with an initial child support obligation of $350 per month and half of the house note. Following their divorce in December 1985, these orders remained effective until modified.

Mr. Martin filed multiple requests to reduce child support, citing changes in his employment status. A consent judgment in February 1986 dismissed his initial request, while a subsequent request in April 1986 was dismissed due to his absence at the hearing. In October 1986, both parties filed rules regarding child support, but a consent judgment later denied both requests.

In March 1988, Ms. Martin sought an increase in child support, which was granted retroactively in July 1988, increasing the amount to $400 and removing the obligation to pay half the house note. Mr. Martin subsequently filed for a reduction in September 1988, arguing Ms. Martin’s remarriage and reduced expenses. Conversely, Ms. Martin filed for an increase in October 1988, citing Mr. Martin's increased income and rising expenses for their child.

On November 22, 1988, the trial judge dismissed Mr. Martin's request to reduce child support and increased it to $600 per month, effective October 13, 1988. Mr. Martin's appeal specifies errors in disregarding a prior consent judgment and claims insufficient evidence for the increase. The trial judge's rationale for ignoring the previous consent judgment aligns with the principles established in Moore v. Moore, indicating that consent judgments do not equate to court-determined awards.

Proof of a change in circumstances is not required to modify a consent judgment, as established in the case of Moore, which was later overruled by Bernhardt v. Bernhardt. In Bernhardt, the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified that a divorce judgment containing consent alimony and child support provisions does not qualify as an “award previously fixed and determined.” The court deemed the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Moore unsound, asserting that modification of child support set in a consent judgment necessitates proving a change in circumstances occurring between the original judgment and the modification request. This principle was reaffirmed in Lacassagne v. Lacassagne and subsequently applied in Somme v. Somme, reinforcing the requirement outlined in La.R.S. 9:311(A) for modifications to support awards.

The trial judge's error arose from disregarding the relevance of the April 12, 1988 consent judgment when assessing changes in circumstances for a modification request dated October 13, 1988. Despite this, evidence supporting a change in circumstances was presented, including increases in the child's expenses and Mr. Martin's adequate income to support the increased child support from $400 to $600 per month. The trial judge's discretion in determining child support amounts is upheld unless clear manifest error is shown, emphasizing an evaluation of the totality of circumstances rather than a strict mathematical formula. Ms. Martin's financial situation post-remarriage, including a relevant housing expense, was also considered in determining the child support amount.

Ms. Martin testified that her rent increased from $375.00 to a total of $228.66 for the child's portion of housing expenses following her remarriage. This shows an increase of $41.16 per month for the child's lodging. She indicated that since April 12, 1988, the child's expenses for clothing, recreation, and tutoring have risen. Specifically, tutoring now costs $15.00 per week, clothing expenses total $75.00, and recreational expenses are also noted at $75.00 per month. The trial court found sufficient evidence to support its decision, leading to the affirmation of the judgment to increase child support to $600, with costs assigned to the appellant.