Case ID: so2d_493/html/0248-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BARRY, Judge. REDMANN, Chief Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Judy Theresa JONES v. Lee Anthony THIBODEAUX.
    No. CA-3325.
    Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
    Aug. 12, 1986.
    Kim A. Gandy, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.
    Floyd J. Reed, Reed & Reed, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
    Before REDMANN, C.J., and BARRY and LOBRANO, JJ.
   BARRY, Judge.

This matter was remanded to reconsider the amount of wages to be assigned for child support. Jones v. Thibodeaux, 488 So.2d 945 (La.1986).

Jones’ interpretation of La.R.S. 13:3881 (as amended in 1980 and 1981), is that up to 50% of defendant’s wages is subject to assignment.

The trial judge stated:

It’s quite obvious that he (defendant) has a difficult time paying $350 a month for the support of the legitimated child and he has two other children, I understand, that were legitimate, even though one is living with him.

Based on the trial court’s determination of hardship, we feel an amount less than maximum is appropriate. We therefore reaffirm the $350.00 monthly support obligation and apply any additional sum up to 40% of defendant’s wages to past due support. This would result in a “reasonable reduction of the past due support.”

Although the trial court decided (for no factual reason) that defendant’s net income was approximately $1,500.00 a month, defendant admitted prior to trial that his net monthly income was $1,732.98. Thus, the 40% assignment is based on that amount.

AMENDED; AFFIRMED.

REDMANN, Chief Judge,

dissenting in part.

I concur in limiting the mother’s assignment to something less than 50% of the father’s disposable earnings, because he has two other children to support (and, much less important, his “past due child support” is not the result of a refusal or neglect to pay weekly or monthly support that had been previously ordered by a court). Although I would prefer to have the trial judge set the assignment percentage, I further concur that, as a necessary temporary measure to provide the mother immediate relief, the assignment of 40%— nearing the maximum assignable under our circumstances — until the “past due” $12,-600 is paid is reasonable.

But I would have our decree grant leave to the trial judge to alter that percentage at any time, even immediately, after weighing the relative positions of the two parents, while átill accomplishing “some reasonable reduction of the past due support” as the supreme court ordered. To that extent I dissent.