Case Name: STATE of Louisiana on Behalf of Paula TAYLOR v. George THOMAS, Jr.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1994-06-28
Citations: 639 So. 2d 837
Docket Number: No. 93-CA-1039
Parties: STATE of Louisiana on Behalf of Paula TAYLOR v. George THOMAS, Jr.
Judges: Before KLIEBERT, BOWES, GAUDIN, GRISBAUM, DUFRESNE, WICKER, GOTHARD and CANNELLA, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 639
Pages: 837–843

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana on Behalf of Paula TAYLOR v. George THOMAS, Jr.
No. 93-CA-1039.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
June 28, 1994.
Phyllis M. Williams, LaPlace, for plaintiff/appellant Paula Taylor.
Patricia A.G. Dean, Dinah S. Cain, Metair-ie, for defendant/appellee George Thomas, Jr.
Before KLIEBERT, BOWES, GAUDIN, GRISBAUM, DUFRESNE, WICKER, GOTHARD and CANNELLA, JJ.

Opinion:
JjCANNELLA, Judge.
Plaintiff, Paula Taylor, appeals from the trial court ruling for defendant, George Thomas, Jr., which denied plaintiffs Rule To Increase Child Support. For the reasons which follow, we vacate and set aside the lower court judgment, and render judgment.
On June 30, 1988, the state, through the St. Charles Parish District Attorney, filed a Rule for Child Support on behalf of the minor, Kelly Lynn Thomas, against defendant. Subsequently, on February 23, 1988, defendant entered a "Stipulation Under R.S. 46:236.7" agreeing to pay monthly child support for the minor in the amount of $150..
On July 30, 1993, plaintiff filed a Rule to Increase Child Support, alleging that there had been changes in the minor's expenses for education, food and lodging and that ^defendant's income had increased substantially.
The rule was heard on September 8, 1993. Plaintiff testified that her income had decreased to $7.32 per hour, that defendant's income had increased and that the needs of the child had increased now that she was in school. Defendant, representing himself, questioned plaintiff about whether he gave her extra money on the occasions when she had asked for it. She acknowledged that he had given her extra money.
The trial judge ruled that the support award was sufficient as long as defendant continued to assist plaintiff when she was in need. Plaintiffs counsel objected to the ruling and was then allowed to call defendant. Defendant admitted that his income had increased substantially since the original child support award was set and that he was now earning $3,345 per month. He stated that he had another child for whom he paid child support in the amount of $345 per month. He also testified that he had provided additional financial assistance to plaintiff when she had requested it.
The trial court ruled orally as follows:
InTight of his [defendant's] testimony, I conclude that his legal obligation should remain the same. However, should he not continue to provide the way he says he does, then I will consider. I'm counting on you to do what you're supposed to do.
Plaintiff appealed. The case was originally, randomly allotted to a three-judge panel of this court. After initial consideration, the panel was in disagreement on the question of whether the record contained sufficient information upon which to base a child support award or whether, because there were no copies of the parties prior income tax returns in the record, remand for further evidence was mandatory. Because some seemingly contrary rulings have been rendered by different panels in this circuit on this issue, we determined that the matter should be considered En Banc. Accordingly, an 1 sorder was issued and the matter is now being considered by the entire court.
This court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record to render a decision in the case. The parties each testified to their monthly income. The testimony was not contradicted or contested and neither party has raised a question on appeal concerning the sufficiency of the evidence of income. La.R.S. 9:315.2 gives either party the right to demand production of verifying income documentation, like federal tax returns. However, absent such a request, we find that under the statute, the production of tax returns can be waived and income figures agreed on, as was done in this case. Therefore, we will render a decision in the case rather than remand for additional evidence.
The facts established at trial indicate that there was a change in circumstances regarding both the increase in the child's expenses and an increase in defendant's income.
The Child Support Guidelines, set out in La.R.S. 9:315 et seq., "are to be used in any proceeding to establish or modify child support filed on or after October 1, 1989." La.R.S. 9:315.1(A). There is a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support obtained by use of the guidelines is the proper amount of support. La.R.S. 9:315.1(A). Deviation from the guidelines is permitted, but reasons for the deviation must be given.
La.R.S. 9:315.1(B), concerning deviation from the guidelines, provides:
The court may deviate from the guidelines set forth in this Part if their application would not be in the best interest of the child or would be inequitable to the parties. The court shall give specific oral or written reasons for the deviation, including a finding as to the amount of support that would have been required under a mechanical application of the guidelines and the particular facts and circumstances that warranted a deviation from the guidelines. The reasons shall be made part of the record of the proceedings.
Under the Child Support Guidelines, the basic child support obligation is calculated based on the combined adjusted gross income of the parties. La.R.S. 9:315.2. In this Lease, the testimony indicates that plaintiffs monthly gross income is $1171.20 (figured at $7.32 per hour for a 40 hour work week). Defendant's monthly gross income is $3,345. Defendant has a pre-existing child support obligation to another child in the amount of $346. Therefore, the combined monthly adjusted gross income of the parties is $4171.20. The basic child support obligation set out in the guidelines for that monthly income is $645. La.R.S. 9:316.14. No other pertinent factors were in evidence. A party is to contribute based on the percentage of his/her share of the combined adjusted gross income. La.R.S. 9:315.8. Therefore the portion of the child support obligation owed by defendant, earning 72% of the income, is $464.40.
Clearly, the court deviated from the guidelines in refusing to increase the previous monthly $150 award, where the guidelines provide, under the circumstances presented here, for a $464.40 award. In doing so, the trial judge did not comply with the guidelines and gave no reasons for the deviation, as mandated by statute. Moreover, based on the record before us, we see no. reasons to justify such a large deviation from the guidelines. Therefore, we vacate and set aside the trial court judgment which denied plaintiffs request for an increase in child support.
In cases where the record contains inadequate information upon which to make a child support determination under the guidelines, a remand to the trial court is necessary. Inzinna v. Acosta, 623 So.2d 1357 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993); Mannina v. Mannina, 588 So.2d 176 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991). However, in cases where the record contains adequate information, an appellate court may apply the child support guidelines to the facts of the case rather than remand to the trial court. State v. Flintroy, 599 So.2d 331 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1992); Crockett v. Crockett, 575 So.2d 942 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1991).
In the present case there is sufficient information upon which to apply the child support guidelines and, therefore, a remand is not necessary. As stated above, applying 1 sthe guidelines to the facts presented, defendant's monthly child support obligation is $464.40. This amount, derived from use of the guidelines, is presumed correct and there is no evidence rebutting this presumption.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, the judgment denying plaintiffs rule to increase child support is vacated and set aside and defendant is ordered to pay monthly child support in the amount of $464.40, retroactive to July 30, 1993, the date of the filing for an increase in child support. Costs are assessed to defendant.
VACATED, SET ASIDE AND RENDERED.
hBOWES, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by WICKER, J.
. La.R.S. 46:236.7 provides in pertinent part:
A. (1) In cases in which the responsible parent or other person owes a duty of support to a spouse or minor child, the responsible parent or other person owing such duty and the district attorney may stipulate to an order of support.
. See:
Inzinna v. Acosta, 623 So.2d 1357 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993); Bercegay v. Bercegay, 617 So.2d 133 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993); Mannina v. Mannina, 588 So.2d 176 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991); but cf. Sarniguet v. Sarniguet, 93-629 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/29/94), 636 So.2d 1218; Granier v. Granier, 93-991 (La.App. 5th Cir. 4/14/94), 636 So.2d 1052; Johno v. Johno, 93-905 (La.App. 5th Cir. 3/16/94), 633 So.2d 966.
. Adjusted gross income is defined in La.R.S. 9:315 as gross income minus amounts for preexisting child support paid to another not a party to these proceedings.