Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Freeman v. Freeman

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

April 12, 2017

GARY RANDALL FREEMAN
v.
RENEE ASPIRION FREEMAN[1]

         On Appeal from the 22nd Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Washington State of Louisiana Trial Court No. 103965, Div. K The Honorable Mary Clemence Devereux, Judge Presiding

          Frank P. Tranchina, Jr. Mark J. Mansfield Kevin P. Maney Covington, Louisiana Attorneys for Appellant Plaintiff - Gary Randall Freeman.

          Kasi Brannan Covington, Louisiana Attorney for Appellee Defendant - Renee Aspiron Freeman.

          BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND CALLOWAY, [2] JJ.

          CALLOWAY, J.

         Plaintiff-Appellant appeals from a trial court judgment concerning permanent spousal support, child support, contempt, and arrears. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         The plaintiff, Gary Randall Freeman, and the defendant, Renee Aspiron Freeman, were married on November 18, 1989; two children were born of the marriage on May 25, 1994 and on May 30, 2002. In February 2012, the parties began living separate and apart, and on April 3, 2012, Mr. Freeman filed a petition for divorce. Pursuant to a July 31, 2012 consent judgment, the trial court set Mr. Freeman's interim spousal support obligation at $2, 328.00 per month; his child support obligation at $1, 219.00 per month; and additionally, the trial court ordered him to maintain medical, dental, and vision insurance for the children and made him responsible for 92% of the remaining minor child's extraordinary medical expenses, extracurricular activities, and mandatory school fees.

         The parties were divorced by judgment dated May 23, 2013. After the divorce, the parties entered into a consent judgment of partition of community property on April 9, 2014, which set Mr. Freeman's final spousal support obligation at $635.00 per month, to terminate when the parties' minor child graduated high school.

         On May 13, 2015, Ms. Freeman filed a rule to increase child support and a rule for contempt.[3] Shortly thereafter, on June 15, 2015, Mr. Freeman filed a motion to terminate the final spousal support award. A hearing officer for the trial court heard the three matters on September 11, 2015, and recommended that Mr. Freeman's child support obligation decrease, from $1, 219.00 per month to $1, 008.00 per month, and that beginning June 1, 2015, his pro-rata responsibility for the minor child's extraordinary medical expenses, extracurricular activities, and mandatory school fees decrease, from 92% to 85%>. The hearing officer also recommended that Mr. Freeman's motion to terminate final spousal support be denied. Mr. Freeman objected to the hearing officer's recommendations, and the matter was set for trial on October 29, 2015.

         Following trial, the trial court signed a judgment on January 14, 2016: (i) denying Mr. Freeman's motion to terminate final spousal support; (ii) denying Ms. Freeman's rule for contempt, but ordering Mr. Freeman to pay any outstanding extracurricular expenses; (iii) ordering Mr. Freeman to pay Ms. Freeman child support in the amount of $1, 008.00 per month; (iv) ordering the parties to share tuition, registration, mandatory school fees, extraordinary medical expenses, and agreed-upon activity fees on a pro-rata basis: Ms. Freeman responsible for 15%, and Mr. Freeman responsible for 85%, effective June 1, 2015; (v) ordering Mr. Freeman to maintain health and hospitalization insurance coverage for the minor child and provide Ms. Freeman with documentation of and access to the policy and health care providers; (vi) ordering the parties to request reimbursement for expenses with a copy of the bill/statement within thirty days of the incurrence, otherwise waiving the right to be reimbursed; requiring the reimbursement to be made within thirty days; and (vii) ordering the parties to purchase a subscription to OurFamilyWizard.com for use as their primary means of communication.

         Mr. Freeman now appeals, contending the trial court erred in denying his motion to terminate final spousal support. Mr. Freeman assigns four errors to the trial court's final judgment:

1. The [t]rial [c]ourt was manifestly erroneous in calculating a final spousal support award before deciding whether the payments were intended as 'disguised child support.'
2. The [t]rial [c]ourt was manifestly erroneous in finding that [Ms. Freeman] was 'in need' of final spousal support by failing to require depletion of assets.
3. The [t]rial [c]ourt was manifestly erroneous in finding that [Ms. Freeman] was 'in need' of final spousal support by failing to find [that Ms. Freeman] was voluntarily underemployed.
4. The [t]rial [c]ourt was manifestly erroneous in finding that [Ms. Freeman] was 'in need' of final spousal support by miscalculating [Ms. Freeman's] tax rate.

         LAW AND DISCUSSION

         There are no allegations that Ms. Freeman was at fault in the dissolution of the marriage. The issues raised in this appeal are limited to the trial court's denial of Mr. Freeman's motion to terminate spousal support and whether the court's calculation of his spousal support obligation was correct.

         Louisiana Civil Code articles 111 and 112 provide for an award of spousal support. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.