Click Here For The Best Shreveport Divorce Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Shreveport Divorce Lawyer Directory

Description:

Shreveport, Louisiana divorce lawyers represented husband and wife in a marriage dissolution case.

Plaintiff-Appellee Christopher B. Nash and Stephanie were married and are the parents of two daughters. The parties separated and divorced in Caddo Parish. In 2018, when both children were minors, a custody decree was entered whereby Christopher was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $1,252.92 per month retroactive to September 2018. Stephanie filed a rule for contempt against Christopher for nonpayment of child support and arrearages; however, the award of arrearages was not considered for years.[1]

In May 2022, the trial court issued a 20-page partition judgment relating to community assets, expenses and obligations. Pursuant to a detailed descriptive list, the trial court determined the cash available to the parties in various bank, 401(K), annuity and trade accounts, as well as some refund checks due to them, equaled $69,416.94. It also valued property each party had in his/her possession and determined that Stephanie's value was $3,474 and Chrisotpher's was $2,090. The equity in their family home was $10,977.64. The gross value of community assets was determined to be $88,948.88.[2]

The trial court also determined that Christopher had reimbursement claims of $23,506.88 for his agreement to pay certain community debts, which Stephanie could not afford to pay. Stephanie was awarded possession of movables worth $7,589. The family home had already been sold; the equity in the home was $10,977.64, which the parties agreed to split equally at $5,488.82.

Also at issue in these proceedings was the value of a fifth-wheel RV, referred to by the judge as a camper, which was owned by the couple and was mortgaged. The partition judgment provided that the trial court had not assigned any value to the camper because it only represented a possible offset against the debt encumbering it. The camper was not listed in the detailed descriptive list, but the trial court ordered it to be sold and the sale proceeds applied to the $35,727.43 outstanding debt and, further, that the parties should continue to pay the note until the debt was extinguished.[3]

The decretal language of the partition judgment states as follows:

[T]he court rules that Stephanie Nash is entitled to $44,474.31 representing her half of the gross community, less the $7589 she has been awarded in corporeal movables, for a net interest in the remainder of the gross community of $36,885.31. This must also be offset by the $23,506.88 she owes Christopher Nash in reimbursement claims. This leaves Stephanie with a pre-debt claim on the gross value of the community of $13,378.43. A disbursement to her of her half of the equity (in the house) will further reduce this interest, hereinafter referred to as the Residual Interest, to $7,889.61. (1/2 of equity is $5,488.82).

After finding the amount of gross community, Christopher's entitlement to reimbursement for payments of community debts of $23,506.88, deductions for movables in his possession and disbursement of
the funds for equity in the family home, the trial court determined his residual interest in the community to be $60,127.37.

The judgment also states:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that once the residual interest of Stephanie is calculated after sale se (sic) is awarded the remaining amount of her Residual Interest from the liquid assets of the community up to the full value. She shall receive funds from each of the following accounts until they are exhausted in sequence up to the full amount of her residual interest.

A. Capital One Checking Account #5250

B. Aneca Federal Credit Union checking #7153

C. Nash Systems Checking Account

D. Nash Systems Savings Account

E. The E-Trade account in the name of Christopher Nash

F. Christopher Nash New York Life Annuity Account

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that once satisfaction of Stephanie Nash's Residual Interest has been satisfied that Christopher Nash is awarded the remainder of the residual community property as sole owner.

Stephanie filed a motion for a new trial, claiming one was necessary for several reasons, including the decision regarding the RV, because she believed the trial court misunderstood the alleged waiver of her rights to spousal support. In her motion for new trial, she stated that she had sacrificed interim spousal support because Christopher was able and willing to pay community debts and she was not. She claimed that this had been discussed at a pretrial conference with a different trial judge and was not on the record. She stated that the partitioning judge had mistakenly assumed she was giving up all claims to spousal support in return for Christopher paying the house note, which she says is inaccurate.

Yet another judge, sitting pro tempore, found that Stephanie's remedy was more properly a motion to amend the partition judgment and so denied the motion for new trial in August 2022.

Stephanie filed a "Motion to Reset Hearing to Modify Custody, Establish Child Support, other Incidental Matters and Set Spousal Support." She alleged that the parties met in January 2019 to discuss their financial status and establish interim spousal support. At that time, the parties agreed in chambers that since Christopher was paying all the community debts and obligations, Stephanie was not awarded interim spousal support. She also alleged that since that time, Christopher never paid any spousal support but, instead, paid all the community debts and obligations. He has since requested reimbursement for those same payments. She reinstated her claim for interim spousal support for the 18 months from the date of Christopher's filing of divorce to the final judgment rendered on January 30, 2020.

A rule nisi was issued in which Christopher was ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt for nonpayment of child support arrearages and extra expenses, why permanent child support should not be established and why spousal support should not be established from the date of separation until final judgment of divorce was rendered.

A hearing was held on January 11, 2023, and the last judge who considered this case signed a consent judgment on March 7, 2023, granting custody of the remaining minor child to Stephanie and awarding her child support in the amount of $973.79 per month, payable biweekly, and payment of medical and dental bills. The parties also agreed that the amount of child support in arrears and other incidental expenses totaled $12,611.92.

While conveying the parties' consent to the agreement, Christopher's attorney stated:

The arrears and any underpaid medical and extracurricular which totals $12,611.92, this compromise will be---a credit will

be given by Christopher to Stephanie against the community debt that is the subject of another judgment.

Stephanie's attorney addressed the issue and stated:

The arrears that are tallied at $12,611.92 that have been asserted and agreed upon here today represent the child support arrears, the medical out-of-pocket arrears and the extracurricular arrears. So as of today's agreement, there will be no further arrears as to anything going forward on those issues, and the parties going prospective on the child support. This is credited against the property judgment that tallies around $55,000.... And I believe with regards to the spousal support issues, those are deemed moot as part of this agreement.

The consent judgment signed by the trial court restated the terms that the amount of $12,611.92 "shall be credited by Christopher B. Nash to Stephanie Nash against the community debt that is the subject of the community property settlement." The consent judgment also states that any/all spousal support issues are deemed moot as part of this agreement.

Less than a month later, Stephanie filed another "Rule to Show Cause for Consent Judgment to be Annulled and Other Matters." She claimed there had been a misunderstanding and error surrounding the application of the $12,611.92 child support judgment to the alleged debt she owed Christopher for paying off community debts. Further, she claimed he was supposed to pay her the residual interest of $7,889.61 from their joint accounts and keep the rest for himself. She also claimed that she and her attorney "misunderstood" the consent judgment and that the money she allegedly owed him was already in the bank accounts in Christopher's possession, which included community funds.

Stephanie prayed that a hearing be held and that the consent judgment be annulled, that a new trial on child support arrearages and extra expenses be held, that a judgment be rendered against Christopher for the money
owed to her under the judgment for child support arrearages and that an order for payment to her for her residual interest in the community property in the amount of $7,889.61 be rendered and enforced pursuant to the original partition judgment.

A hearing was held on June 15, 2023, before the same judge who had signed the consent judgment. The trial court considered whether the error in the judgment was a unilateral or a bilateral error. Stephanie testified that she had believed she owed Christopher money, but later realized she did not. Christopher testified that he also believed Stepanie owed him money. Despite this confusion, the trial court denied Stephanie's rule to show cause. Stephanie appeals the judgment of the trial court.
Nash v. Nash, 55,848-CA (La. App. Aug 28, 2024)

Outcome: Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: