Trahan v. Trahan

• Decision Date: 16 September 2016
• Docket Number: 2016 CA 0108
• Citation: 203 So.3d 447
• Parties: Misty Livermore Trahan v. Darren Todd Trahan
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

203 So.3d 447

Misty Livermore Trahan

v.Darren Todd Trahan

2016 CA 0108

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

September 16, 2016

Kim Segura Landry, Ronnie J. Berthelot, Karina Neito Womack, Gonzales, Louisiana, Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant, Misty Livermore Trahan

Joseph B. Dupont, Jr., Plaquemine, Louisiana, Attorney for Defendant/Appellee, Darren Todd Trahan

BEFORE: PETTIGREW, McDONALD, AND DRAKE, JJ.

McDONALD, J.

In this appeal, a former wife challenges a judgment finding her in contempt of court for failing to pay a money judgment owed to her former husband in their community property partition suit. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Darren and Misty Trahan were divorced in 2010. After the divorce, Mr. Trahan filed a petition to partition the couple's community property. Later, Mr. Trahan filed a second petition against Ms. Trahan, under the same suit number, for breach of fiduciary duties, violation of the "LLC Act," and mismanagement of a community-owned business.¹ Mr. Trahan alleged that the parties were the sole members of Trahan Enterprises, L.L.C., which operated Adventureland Kids, a day care business. He further alleged that Ms. Trahan had had exclusive control over the business since their separation and, since 2009, had mismanaged the business to his financial detriment, in violation of Louisiana law governing limited liability companies. Ms. Trahan answered, stating that she was the managing partner of the day care business, had always made all business decisions, denied any mismanagement, and that Mr. Trahan had never been actively involved in the business.

At a February 2013 hearing, the parties agreed that the trial court would address the partition of their community property in phases: first, a determination of the community assets, debts, and values; second, a determination of the parties' reimbursement obligations; and, third, if the parties could not otherwise agree, a community property asset partition. This agreement resulted in the trial court's issuance of three judgments: an October 2013 judgment in which the trial court assigned values to most of the Trahans' community assets and liabilities and which reserved several unresolved matters for trial; a December 2014 judgment in Mr. Trahan's favor and against Ms. Trahan and Trahan Enterprises, in solido, for $48,914, plus $3,173 in attorney fees, and dismissing Mr. Trahan's breach of fiduciary duty claims with prejudice² ; and, a May 2015 judgment, granted pursuant to Mr. Trahan's motion for new trial,³ which clarified Ms. Trahan's "total equalizing payment obligation" and set forth several awards of money, including an equalization payment⁴ of almost $249,000 owed by Ms. Trahan to Mr. Trahan. Further, the May 2015 judgment awarded $71,813 to Mr. Trahan and against Ms. Trahan and Trahan Enterprises. Lastly, the May 2015 judgment stated that "all provisions of the [October 2013 Judgment] and ... the [December 2014 judgment] which are not specifically addressed in this Judgment remain in full force and effect." Neither party sought review of the May 2015 judgment, which now is final.

In September 2015, Mr. Trahan filed a rule for contempt against Ms. Trahan and Trahan Enterprises, alleging that they failed to pay amounts owed under the three judgments. After a hearing on the rule, the trial court signed a judgment on November 24, 2015, ordering that Ms. Trahan was in contempt for failing to satisfy the judgments totaling $321,634.85, and also ordering that she pay Mr. Trahan $1,000 in attorney fees and $150 in court costs.⁵ The judgment did not mention Trahan Enterprises.

Ms. Trahan appeals from the contempt judgment. In a single assignment of error, she contends the trial court could not hold her in contempt and order her to pay attorney fees and costs for failing to pay a money judgment. She first argues that she "paid" the judgment by accepting credits in lieu of Mr. Trahan's child support obligations. Alternatively, she argues that, even if she did not pay the May 2015 judgment, her failure to pay is due to her inability to pay the amount owed, citing LSA–R.S. 13:4206. Rather, she claims Mr. Trahan's proper remedy was to execute the money judgment against her via a writ of fieri facias under LSA–C.C.P. art. 2291, directing the seizure of her property as the judgment debtor. She also claims that Mr. Trahan knew a rule for contempt was not the proper vehicle to enforce a money judgment. She argues that he should be sanctioned under LSA–C.C.P. art. 863 and ordered to pay costs of the appeal as well as attorney fees for the contempt hearing and for preparation of the appeal.

In response, Mr. Trahan contends that LSA–R.S. 13:4206 does not apply, because the trial court's May 2015 judgment is not a judgment for the payment of money; thus, he argues Ms. Trahan's failure to pay him can be construed as contempt, and the trial court properly rendered a contempt judgment against her.

DISCUSSION

The power to punish for contempt of court shall be limited by law. LSA–Const. art. 5, § 2. Louisiana Revised Statute 13:4206 limits a court's power to find a judgment debtor in contempt for failing to pay a money judgment when the debtor's failure to pay is due to his inability to pay at the time the judgment was rendered. Specifically, LSA–R.S. 13:4206 provides:

Failure to obey an order or judgment of court, when such order or judgment is in effect an order or judgment for the payment of money, shall not be construed as a contempt, if it appears that the failure to obey is due to inability to comply with the order or judgment which inability existed when the order or judgment was rendered.

Thus, we must first determine if the trial court's May 2015 judgment, incorporating its two prior judgments, constitute a judgment "for the payment of money." If so, we next must determine if Ms. Trahan's failure to pay the money judgment was due to her inability to pay at the time the May 2015 judgment was rendered.

Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2801 provides the procedure by which community property is partitioned when the spouses are unable to agree on a partition.

Bible v. Bible, 03–2793 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/17/04), 895 So.2d 547, 549, writ denied , 05–1081 (La. 6/17/05), 904 So.2d 700. In a partition proceeding, the trial court values the community assets, determines the community liabilities, and adjudicates the spouses' claims. LSA–R.S. 9:2801(A)(4)(a). The court also divides and allocates the community assets and liabilities so that each spouse receives property of an equal net value. LSA–R.S. 9:2801(A)(4)(b) and (c). If the allocation of assets and liabilities results in an unequal net distribution, the court shall order the payment of an equalizing sum of money. LSA–R.S. 9:2801(A)(4)(d).

Here, the trial court rendered the May 2015 judgment according to the procedure set forth in LSA–R.S. 9:2801(A)(4). After valuing and allocating the Trahans' assets and liabilities, the trial court found that such allocation resulted in an unequal net distribution of their property. Thus, the trial court's logical next step was to render a judgment ordering the payment of an equalizing sum of money, pursuant to LSA–R.S. 9:2801(A)(4)(d). On appeal, Mr. Trahan argues that the May 2015 judgment does not accomplish that purpose. Relying on Madere v. Madere , 95–1635 (La. 10/16/95), 660 So.2d 1205 (per curiam), he argues that the May 2015 judgment "lays out various amounts" in his favor but does not order Ms. Trahan to pay an equalizing sum of money.⁶ We disagree.

In Madere, 660 So.2d at 1205, the Louisiana Supreme Court determined that the judgment at issue allocated the former spouses' community assets and liabilities, and resulted in an unequal net distribution, but did not order the payment of an equalizing sum of money as required by LSA–R.S. 9:2801. Unlike the Madere judgment, the May 2015 judgment in this case does take the next logical step of ordering Ms. Trahan to pay a sum of money to Mr. Trahan—that is, it states that its purpose is to clarify the total equalization payment obligation and that it results in specific monetary awards. The relevant text of the judgment provides:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, for purposes of clarification, the Judgment signed on December 30 2014, plus the supplemental relief provided in this [May 2015] Supplemental Judgment, result in the following awards:

The amount of $71,813.00 in favor of Darren Todd Trahan and against Trahan Enterprises LLC and Misty Livermore Trahan, jointly and in solido, plus interest on that amount, with interest commencing on July 5, 2012; plus,

The amount of $248,920.62 as the net equalizing payment obligation owed by Misty Trahan to Darren Trahan, plus judicial interest thereon, calculated from December 30, 2014; plus,

The amount of $3,173.00, which is the amount of attorney fees which Misty Trahan owes to Darren Trahan, plus interest thereon, calculated from December 30, 2014.

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that all provisions of the October 10, 2013 Judgment and provisions of the December 30, 2014 Judgment which are not specifically addressed in this Judgment remain in full force and effect. (Italics added.)

In construing a judgment, we consider the entire context of the suit, the pleadings, subject matter of the suit, reasons for judgment, if any, and other matters of record to arrive at an interpretation consistent with a proper decree on the facts and law presented. Veal v. American Maintenance & Repair, Inc., 00–2245 (La.App. 1 Cir. 12/28/01), 804 So.2d 889, 891. When the trial court rendered the May 2015 judgment, the Trahans' community property partition litigation had been pending for several years, their assets and liabilities had been valued and allocated, an unequal net property distribution existed, and all that remained was a judgment ordering Ms. Trahan's equalization payment to Mr. Trahan. Given this procedural posture, and reasonably interpreting the judgment's wording in that...