Court Opinion

ID: 9904771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 20:04:42.364692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:25.171362
License: Public Domain

STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                COURT OF APPEAL

                                  FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 NO. 2023 CA 0608

                               LEAH RENEE LYNCH

                                      VERSUS

                         MATTHEW THOMAS LYNCH

                                                  Judgment Rendered:
                                                                       Nov 2 7 2023

                                    On Appeal From

                                   The Family Court
                               Parish of East Baton Rouge
                                   State of Louisiana
                                Trial Court No. 199, 844

              The Honorable Ronald D. Cox, Judge Ad Hoc Presiding

Charles E. Griffin, II                            Attorney for Plaintiff A
                                                                         - ppellee,
St. Francisville, Louisiana                       Leah Renee Lynch

Brienne M. Griffin                                Attorney for Defendant -Appellant,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana                            Matthew Thomas Lynch

              BEFORE: WELCH, HOLDRIDGE, AND WOLFE, JJ.

                          t.

                                     4A'" 6&..4
WOLFE, J.

         In this appeal, divorced parents dispute whether the mother is entitled to

recover past -due child support in the amount originally set in a stipulated judgment.

The trial court found in favor of the mother, ordering the father to pay child support

arrearages totaling $ 20, 994.00, and to continue paying the original amount of child

support set at $ 624. 00 per month.    For the reasons set forth, we affirm.

                                    BACKGROUND

         Matthew Thomas Lynch and Leah Renee Lynch married in 2006 and divorced

on June 29, 2016.    They had two children. Pursuant to a stipulated judgment signed

on August 24, 2015, Matthew was ordered to pay child support to Leah in the amount

of $626.00 per month, and the parties agreed to exercise joint shared (50150) custody

of the two minor children. The parties also agreed to review Matthew' s gross income

for child support purposes and custody " on a mutually agreeable date in January of

2016."    The review in court never occurred; however, after the divorce was final,

Matthew began paying $ 346. 08 for child support each month, beginning in August

2016. Matthew believed that he and Leah had an extrajudicial verbal agreement to

decrease his child support obligation, and according to him, Leah never asked him

to pay the full $ 626. 00 amount. Nevertheless, six years later on August 2, 2022,

Leah filed a motion to modify the custody arrangement and a rule for contempt,

alleging that Matthew was in arrears on his child support obligation in the amount

of $20,994. 00, which was the full amount awarded in the 2015 stipulated judgment.'

After a hearing, the trial court concluded there was no evidence of an extrajudicial

modification of the original child support amount, and Matthew was ordered to pay

 20,994.00 in child support arrears to Leah and to continue paying the original

 Leah amended the arrearage amount total to $20, 994. 00 on October 28, 2022.

                                              2
amount of child support set at $ 624. 00      per month. The court signed a judgment in

accordance with its ruling on February 16, 2023. 2 Matthew now appeals.

                                   LAW AND ANALYSIS

       On appeal, Matthew argues that he and Leah, along with their attorneys at the

time, agreed to decrease Matthew' s child support obligation from $626. 00 per month

to $ 346.08 per month, and therefore, the trial court erred in ordering him to pay past -

due child support.        In contrast, Leah denies that she ever agreed to accept a lower

amount for child support even though she knew the attorneys were corresponding

about the issue.        At the hearing, Leah testified that she did not verbally agree to

accept the decrease and there was nothing in writing to that effect.              Leah claimed

that she did not go back to court until 2022 because she could not afford to do so.

Matthew testified that the entire time he was paying the lower amount, he believed

that he and Leah had an agreement.

       The long- standing general rule in Louisiana is that a child support judgment

remains in full force and effect in favor of the party to whom it is awarded until that

judgment is modified or terminated by the court. Palmer v. Palmer, 95- 0608 ( La.

App. 1st Cir. 1119195), 665 So. 2d 49, 50.          However, courts have recognized that a

judgment awarding child support can be extrajudicially modified by agreement of

the parties.    State in Interest of Michelli v. Michelli, 2020- 1171 ( La. App. 1 st Cir.

4116121), 323 So.3d 870, 874.          Such an agreement must meet the requisites of a

conventional obligation, must foster the continued support and upbringing of the

children, and must not interrupt the children' s maintenance or otherwise work to

their detriment. Dubroc v. Dubroc, 388 So. 2d 377, 380 ( La. 1980); Palmer, 665

So. 2d at 51.    Further, the evidence must clearly establish the parties have agreed to

waive or to otherwise modify the court- ordered payments. Palmer, 665 So. 2d at 51;

2 The trial court also declined to find Matthew in contempt. That portion of the judgment is not at
issue in this appeal.

                                                3
Michelli, 32.3 So. 3d at 874.     The burden of proof is upon the person seeking to

modify the obligation. Michelli, 323 So. 3d at 874. Failure to protest or acquiesce

in a unilateral reduction does not defeat an action for arrearages or amount to a

waiver.   Dubroc, 388 So.2d at 378; Brasfield v. Brasfield, 98- 1021 ( La. App. 5th

Cir. 2/ 23/ 99), 729 So. 2d 83, 85.

       An exception to this general rule is when one party has voluntarily placed

physical custody of a child with the other parent and that parent provides the full

support of the child. In such a situation, the courts have found an implied agreement

between the parents even though there was no specific agreement to suspend or

decrease the child support payments. See Palmer, 665 So. 2d at 51.     There is nothing

in the record to suggest that the parties deviated from the joint custody arrangement.

Whether there exists an agreement between parents to suspend or modify child

support payments is a question of fact. The trial court is vested with great discretion

in determining factual matters; in the absence of manifest error, its decision will not

be overturned.      See   Stobart v.   State through the Dept.       of Transp.    and

Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882 ( La. 1993); Palmer, 665 So. 2d at 51.

       In this case, the trial court awarded Leah the full amount of the past -due child

support claimed. Implicit in the trial court' s judgment is a finding that Matthew had

failed to prove that the parties " clearly agreed"      to modify the court-ordered

payments.     While it was undisputed that Matthew did not pay the full $ 626. 00

amount of child support ordered in the 2015 stipulated judgment and that Leah had

accepted $   346. 08 per month for six years, there was much conflicting evidence

presented to the trial court regarding the existence of an extrajudicial agreement to

modify the child support award. We recognize that the trial court, after observing

the demeanor of the parties, was faced with an apparent credibility choice and

concluded that no express agreement had been reached. Given the trial court' s great

                                            4
discretion in credibility determinations, we cannot say this factual finding was

manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong. Stobart, 617 So.2d at 882.

      After listening to the testimony of both parties, the trial court commented that

the case was " puzzling ...   because it' s a he said, she said."   The trial court also

explained that the evidence was lacking in that there was no testimony from either

of the attorneys who had represented Matthew and Leah at the time that Matthew

claimed an extrajudicial agreement was reached.      The trial court specifically noted

that the correspondence between the lawyers did not indicate that Leah ever agreed

to Matthew paying a lower amount, and that there was nothing showing that the

parties actually agreed to the modification. While we are sympathetic to Matthew' s

situation and recognize the possibility that some discussions may have transpired

regarding child support payments, we find that a reasonable factual basis exists to

support the trial court' s conclusion that Matthew simply did not meet his burden of

proving that the parties clearly agreed to modify the court-ordered child support

payments.

                                   CONCLUSION

      For the reasons set forth,     we affirm the trial court' s February 16, 2023

judgment determining that Leah Renee Lynch is entitled to past -due child support in

the amount of $20, 994.00     and to ongoing monthly child support payments of

 626.00 per month from Matthew Thomas Lynch. Appeal costs are assessed against

defendant -appellant, Matthew Thomas Lynch.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            5
LEAH RENEE LYNCH                                          STATE OF LOUISIANA

                                                          COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
                                                          FIRST CIRCUIT

MATTHEW THOMAS LYNCH                                      NO. 2023 CA 0608

HOLDRIDGE, J., dissents.

      I respectfully dissent. The party asserting an extrajudicial modification has

the burden of proving a clear and specific agreement; mere acquiescence in

accepting reduced payments does not waive the right to enforce the judgment.

Burnette v. Burnette, 98- 0498 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 10121198), 720 So. 2d 757, 761.

      A judgment of the trial court awarding child support can be extrajudicially

modified by agreement of the parties. Extrajudicial modification of a child support

obligation is not required to be in writing or signed by the parties.      Cahn v. Cahn,

2022- 0801 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 6114123), 368 So. 3d 717, 723, writ not considered, 2023-

00976 ( La. 10131123).      Such an agreement must be clearly proven, it must meet the

requisites   of   a   conventional   obligation,   and it must not interrupt the child' s

maintenance or upbringing or otherwise work to his detriment at the time it was

made. The record reveals that from August of 2016 until August of 2022, Mr. Lynch

paid $346. 08 as his child support obligation. Ms. Lynch waited until August of 2022

to file a motion to modify the custody arrangement and a rule for contempt, alleging

that Mr. Lynch was in arrears on his child support obligation. The lack of complaint

on the part of Ms. Lynch lends credence to Mr. Lynch' s testimony that the parties

had an extrajudicial verbal agreement for the reduction of child support. See Hodge

v. Hodge, 338 So. 2d 161 ( La. App. 2 Cir. 1976).

       Furthermore, Ms. Lynch claimed that she waited six years to file for a

modification of child support because she could not afford to do so. However, the

record reveals that in March of 2022, she filed a petition for ex parte custody order
and modification of custody against Mr. Lynch,          wherein Mr. Lynch filed a

reconventional demand against her stating several reasons why she violated their

stipulated judgment, including having     several romantic partners and consuming

alcohol during her custodial period.   Therefore, Mr. Lynch requested that the trial

court hold Ms. Lynch in contempt of court. Ms. Lynch did not raise the issue of

arrearages in her March pleadings, confirming the fact that she agreed with the child

support amount that she was collecting.

         While I am reluctant to overturn the factual findings of the trial court,

especially in matters involving an agreement to modify the child support obligation,

I have concluded that Mr. Lynch has proven by clear and convincing evidence that

this is one of those rare cases in which the " implied agreement" exception should

apply.   The action of Ms. Lynch clearly indicates that for over six years, she agreed

that the child support amount that was due was $ 346.08.   It was only after Mr. Lynch

filed his reconventional demand against her alleging several reasons why she

violated their stipulated judgment in their custody dispute did Ms. Lynch want to

argue that she did not agree to the child support obligation amount of $346. 08.

Therefore,    I believe that the trial court erred in not finding that there was an

extrajudicial verbal agreement between the parties for the reduction in child support.