Case Name: Rita HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmett HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1992-02-20
Citations: 594 So. 2d 1129
Docket Number: No. 90-853
Parties: Rita HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmett HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., STOKER, J., and MARCANTEL , J. Pro Tern.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 594
Pages: 1129–1132

Head Matter:
Rita HENDRICKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmett HENDRICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 90-853.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Feb. 20, 1992.
Lunn, Irion, Johnson, Salley & Carlisle, Julia A. Mann, Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.
Gahagan & Gahagan, Fred S. Gahagan, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before DOMENGEAUX, C.J., STOKER, J., and MARCANTEL , J. Pro Tern.
Honorable Bernard N. Marcantel participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

Opinion:
DOMENGEAUX, Chief Judge.
Emmett Hendricks appeals a trial court judgment ordering him to pay $4,845.00 in past due child support to his former spouse, Rita Hendricks. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Emmett and Rita Hendricks were married on December 19, 1965, with one child, Casey, being born of the marriage. On April 12, 1988, Rita obtained a judgment granting her a divorce and ordering Emmett to continue paying the previously fixed sum of $400.00 per month in child support.
On February 7, 1990, Rita filed a rule to show cause, alleging Emmett was in arrears in his child support payments. After a hearing, the trial court found Emmett to be $7,400.00 in arrears, but allowed a credit of $2,555.00 representing Social Security benefits paid to Casey during a 13 month period in which Emmett was totally disabled. On May 10, 1990, the trial court signed a judgment making the past due balance of $4,845.00 executory.
On appeal, Emmett alleges the trial court should have relieved him of his child support obligation while he was totally disabled because during that time he was bedridden and, therefore, was physically unable to make a court appearance to seek a modification of the child support award. In the alternative, Emmett alleges the trial court erred in failing to allow an equitable credit for the months in which he alleges Casey lived with him.
Alimony or child support remains in full force and effect in favor of the party to whom it is awarded until the party ordered to pay has the judgment modified or terminated by a court. Halcomb v. Halcomb, 352 So.2d 1013 (La.1977). The exception to this rule is when the parties have clearly agreed to waive or modify court ordered payments. Dubroc v. Dubroc, 388 So.2d 377 (La.1980).
Emmett did not seek judicial modification of the court ordered support award, nor does he allege that he and his former spouse agreed to a suspension or modification of his child support payments. He argues that he is entitled to equitable relief because, although his circumstances clearly warranted a modification of the child support award, he was physically unable to assert his claim. However, the principle followed by all circuits has been that justice or equity will not nullify or reduce an alimony or child support award Until the judgment is altered or amended by operation of law. Hendrix v. Hendrix, 457 So.2d 815 (La.App. 1st Cir.1984). To grant Emmett tbe relief he requests under the facts of this case would in effect create new grounds for an out of court modification, in addition to the one exception recognized in Dubroc. Considering Emmett's failure to seek a judicial modification of the child support award and the absence of any evidence supporting an agreement between Emmett and Rita to suspend the support payments, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to allow Emmett a credit during his disability.
Emmett next argues he is entitled to a credit for four months when Casey lived with him. Although Emmett presented evidence on this issue at the hearing, the judgment and reasons for judgment are silent as to this question. Silence in a judgment as to any part of a demand made in litigation is construed as a rejection of that part of the demand, Hendrix, supra.
Since the Dubroc decision, which allows the parties to agree to an out of court modification of a child support award, the courts have held that child support can be suspended by implied agreement, where it is found that the mother delivered the physical custody of the children to the father, even when the mother did not specifically agree to the suspension of payments. Bagby v. Dillon, 434 So.2d 654 (La.App. 3d Cir.1983), writ denied, 440 So.2d 150 (La. 1983); Sims v. Sims, 422 So.2d 618 (La. App. 3d Cir.1982), writ denied, 427 So.2d 870 (La.1983). However, the issue of suspension of child support during extended periods of visitation is a matter within the trial court's discretion and is determined on a case by case basis. McCoy v. McCoy, 541 So.2d 1006 (La.App. 3d Cir.1989). After reviewing the record, we find no error in the trial court's implied denial of the credit requested by Emmett.
For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to defendant-appellant, Emmett Hendricks.
AFFIRMED.
STOKER, J., dissents and. assigns written reasons.
. In Hebert v. Hebert, 159 So.2d 537 (La.App. 3d Cir.1964), this court refused to allow such a credit in the absence of a judicial modification of the support award. Although the Hebert case has been criticized and questioned, see Lachney v. Lachney, 399 So.2d 731 (La.App. 3d Cir.1981), it has never been expressly overruled. The interpretation given Dubroc by the various circuits shows that Hebert is no longer followed, and apparently, has fallen by the wayside.