APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT. PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 122476. HONORABLE VINCENT JOSEPH BORNE, DISTRICT JUDGE.
Edward Paul Landry, Attorney at Law, New Iberia, LA, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Lindley Scott Holleman.
Jack Derrick Miller, Attorney at Law, Crowley, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Natalie Louise Barrilleaux.
Nicole B. Breaux, Attorney at Law, Crowley, LA, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Natalie Louise Barrilleaux.
Lindley Scott Holleman, In Proper Person, New Iberia, LA.
Court composed of Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, Chief Judge, John D. Saunders, and Billy Howard Ezell, Judges.
[14-499 La.App. 3 Cir. 1]
This is an appeal by Natalie Louise Barrilleaux from the trial court's award of
$1,922.95 per month for the support of the parties' minor daughter.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Natalie Louise Barrilleaux (hereafter " Appellant" ) and Lindley Scott Holleman (hereafter " Appellee" ) are the parents of a minor daughter, Rowan Grace Barrilleaux. Appellant is employed by Dr. William Andre Cenac as an office manager. Appellee is a member in Hollemire International, LLC (hereafter " Hollemire" ), in which he has a fifty percent interest, and of Private Workforce Solutions, LLC (hereafter " Private Workforce" ). Additionally, Appellee has an interest in a family trust fund.
On May 1, 2013, Appellee filed a Petition for Paternity and Custody. Appellee filed a reconventional demand, seeking sole custody and child support. Following two hearing officer conferences, Appellee was ordered to pay $1,497.00 per month in support of the child. Appellee's gross income was calculated to be $10,000.00 per month. Appellant objected to the Hearing Officer's Recommendations, which were made a temporary order of the court on August 27, 2013.
A hearing was held on September 11, 2013. Appellee testified that he received a salary of [14-499 La.App. 3 Cir. 2] $10,000.00 per month from Hollemire, made multiple additional draws from Hollemire, and did not receive any income from the family trust. Schedule K-1 from Private Workforce indicates distributions in the amount of $6,737.00 were made to Appellee in 2012. Appellee was ordered to pay $1,922.95 per month in support of the child. The district judge found Appellant's gross income from Dr. Cenac to be $4,766.67 per month. The trial court found Appellee's gross income to be $15,500.00 per month, which included his salary of $10,000.00 per month from Hollemire, an unspecified amount of the " draws" taken from Hollemire in addition to his salary, and his ownership interest in Hollemire. It is from this judgment that this appeal arises.
Appellant asserts the trial judge erred in finding Appellee's gross income to be $15,500.00 per month. Appellant urges us to find that Appellee's gross income includes his salary and draws from Hollemire, the net undistributed profits of Hollemire, the direct payments of Appellee's personal expenses by Hollemire, and the distributions from Private Workforce. She requests we adjust the child support award accordingly.
In Baggett v. Baggett, 96-453 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/23/97), 693 So.2d 264, 266, we noted that there is a " three tiered standard" to be applied by an appellate review of a child support award. We explained:
When we review a trial judge's decision in a case such as the present, we must make three determinations, under three different standards of appellate review. First, we must determine whether the trial judge correctly applied the proper legal standard or standards. We do not defer to the discretion or judgment of the trial judge on issues of law. Second, we must examine the trial judge's findings of fact. We will not overturn the trial judge's factual determinations unless, in light of the record taken as a whole, they are manifestly erroneous (or clearly wrong). Third, we must examine the propriety of the alimony award. If it is within legal limits and based on facts supported by the record, we will not alter the amount of the award in the absence of an abuse of the trial judge's great discretion to set such awards.
Id. at 266-67 (quoting Davy v. Davy, 469 So.2d 481(La.App. ...