Holley v. Holley
| Decision Date | 20 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | NO. 17–C–325,17–C–325 |
| Citation | 232 So.3d 717 |
| Parties | Drayton Waters HOLLEY, II v. Alexandra Robin HOLLEY |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT, DRAYTON WATERS HOLLEY, II, Cynthia A. De Luca, Rebecca Gilson, Mary Cappie Tavary, David I. Courcelle
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/RELATOR, ALEXANDRA ROBIN HOLLEY, Mitchell J. Hoffman, Jeffrey M. Hoffman, New Orleans, Abigail F. Gerrity
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Fredericka Homberg Wicker, and Jude G. Gravois
In this writ application, relator-mother seeks review of the trial court's judgment sustaining father-respondent's objection to her relocating their minor child from New Orleans to Baton Rouge. Additionally, relator-mother seeks review of the trial court's issuance of a preliminary injunction, enjoining her from leaving Orleans and Jefferson Parishes with the child "for any reason whatsoever," as well as the trial court judgments awarding interim joint custody to the parties.1
First, as to the relocation issue, we find that the trial judge committed a prejudicial legal error in applying the incorrect law and we, thus, conduct a de novo review of the relocation issue. Upon our de novo review, we find that the appropriate method to measure "miles" under the Relocation Act is by radial miles, or "as the crow flies," rather than by surface or road miles. In this case, we find that the proposed relocation at issue is less than 75 radial miles from the father-respondent's domicile and, thus, the relocation statutes, La. R.S. 9:355.1 et seq. , do not apply. Second, we find that the preliminary injunction issued is invalid as a matter of law because Mr. Holley failed to post security as required under La. C.C.P. art. 3610. Finally, as to the interim custody orders issued, we find that the trial judge erred in considering evidence not properly offered and introduced. Accordingly, for the reasons herein, we vacate the interim custody orders, the preliminary injunction, and the relocation judgment at issue, and remand this matter for further proceedings.
Drayton Waters Holley, II, and Alexandra Robin Holley were married on September 27, 2014. Of the marriage, one child, C.H, was born on January 4, 2015. Prior to the proceedings at issue filed in Jefferson Parish, the parties filed dual petitions for protective orders in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans.2 In Ms. Holley's petition for protective order, she alleged that Mr. Holley "shook" C.H. when C.H. was a three-day old infant. On March 23, 2015, the trial judge in Orleans Parish granted Ms. Holley's petition for protection from abuse as to C.H. only and denied Mr. Holley's petition for protection from abuse. The transcript from the Orleans Parish hearing reflects the trial judge found that Mr. Holley's actions against C.H. were not intentional and ordered that both Mr. Holley and Ms. Holley attend new parenting classes at Children's Hospital. The trial judge in Orleans Parish issued a protective order on March 26, 2015, for a six-month period, with an established expiration date of September 26, 2015. The protective order additionally awarded Ms. Holley temporary custody of C.H. and Mr. Holley supervised visitation.
On March 23, 2015, Mr. Holley filed a petition for divorce in the 24th Judicial District Court, seeking a divorce as well as a determination on initial custody and child support matters. On November 15, 2015, Ms. Holley filed exceptions of insufficiency of citation and service of process, lis pendens, and improper venue.3 On April 21, 2016, the trial judge denied Ms. Holley's exceptions. In the same judgment, the trial judge awarded Mr. Holley supervised visitation with an independent supervisor, Ms. Martha Bujanda, and further appointed Dr. Edward Shwery to perform a custody evaluation as well as conduct psychological testing of both parties.4
On April 26, 2017, Mr. Holley filed a pleading titled, "Objection to Defendant's Unauthorized Relocation of the Minor Child's Residence and Request for Attorney's Fees and Court Costs all with Incorporated Memorandum in Support [;] Request for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order Not to Remove Minor Child From Jurisdiction of the Court Pending a Hearing and Request for Injunction, Rule to Change/Modify Custody to Joint Custody with Petitioner Designated as Domiciliary Parent all with Incorporated Memorandum in Support." In his objection, Mr. Holley alleged that Ms. Holley relocated C.H. to Baton Rouge in February or March 2016, without his knowledge or proper notice as required under La. R.S. 9:355.4(A).5 Mr. Holley alleged that Ms. Holley forwarded correspondence to his counsel on March 28, 2017, notifying him that she planned to relocate C.H. to Baton Rouge on May 28, 2017,6 but that the written notification did not provide a specific address in Baton Rouge as required under La. R.S. 9:355.5.7 On April 10, 2017, Mr. Holley responded through correspondence to Ms. Holley's counsel, objecting to the proposed relocation.
In his objection, Mr. Holley asserted first that Ms. Holley had in fact "relocated" C.H. as contemplated under the Relocation Act, i.e. , that the proposed address in Baton Rouge exceeds the 75–mile restriction set forth in the Act and, second, that Ms. Holley should be prohibited from relocating C.H. to Baton Rouge as it is not in the minor child's best interest. Mr. Holley contended that Ms. Holley's March 28, 2017 correspondence was both insufficient and untimely to constitute proper notice of relocation under La. R.S 9:355.5.
Mr. Holley further requested that the parties be awarded joint custody of C.H. He asserted that the custody evaluation with appointed evaluator Dr. Shwery was near completion and that supervised visitation, as ordered in the April 26, 2016 judgment, had continued with no incidents. He further contended that a change of circumstances occurred since the April 21, 2016 judgment awarding supervised visitation. Specifically, he alleged that Ms. Holly moved C.H. into her new husband's home in Baton Rouge and that Ms. Holley encouraged C.H. to refer to her new husband as "Daddy." Mr. Holley further alleged that Ms. Holley continued to refuse to inform him of C.H.'s whereabouts, including the address where C.H. lived.8
Mr. Holley also requested a temporary restraining order, and a subsequent preliminary injunction, prohibiting Ms. Holley from removing C.H. out of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes pending a hearing on his objection to the relocation. On April 26, 2017, the trial judge issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting Ms. Holley from removing the minor child from Jefferson and Orleans Parishes "for any reason whatsoever" pending a hearing set for May 30, 2017.
Ms. Holley filed an Answer to Mr. Holley's Objection, as well as a "Motion to Establish Child Support for the Minor Child, Terminate Supervised Visitation, Remove Ms. Bujanda as Supervisor, Request for Attorney Fees and Costs and for Sanctions, and that a TRO be Denied." In response to Mr. Holley's objection to relocation, Ms. Holley asserted that her move to Baton Rouge is not in fact a relocation because the distance between her prior residence, which was the child's primary residence, and her new residence is less than the 75–mile restriction provided in La. R.S. 9:355.2(B). Therefore, she contended that the relocation statutes do not apply in this case. Concerning custody, Ms. Holley claimed that any custody determination would be premature because the custody evaluation was not yet complete.
The trial court conducted a hearing on May 30, 2017. The matters set before the court were visitation and custody; a request for an injunction prohibiting Ms. Holley from traveling with C.H. outside of Jefferson and Orleans Parishes; and Mr. Holley's objection to Ms. Holley's unauthorized relocation to Baton Rouge. Concerning relocation, Mr. Holley asserted first that Ms. Holley had in fact "relocated" the child as contemplated under the Relocation Act, i.e. , that the proposed address in Baton Rouge exceeds the 75–mile restriction set forth in the relocation statutes and, second, that Ms. Holley should be prohibited from relocating C.H. to Baton Rouge because it is not in C.H.'s best interest.
At the hearing, Mr. Holly testified that he resides at 160 Citrus Road in Jefferson Parish. He testified that he received correspondence dated March 28, 2017 from Ms. Holley's counsel indicating that she intended to relocate C.H. to Baton Rouge on or about May 28, 2017. He testified to his suspicions that Ms. Holley relocated with C.H. sometime between Halloween and Christmas of 2016 without his knowledge or the permission of the Court. He testified that he searched MapQuest, Google maps, and AAA Direction to determine the distance between Ms. Holley's Baton Rouge address and C.H.'s principal residence in Orleans Parish. He testified that Google Maps reflected the drive to be 75.7 miles and MapQuest reflected the drive as 75.1 miles.9
Ms. Holley testified at trial that she is married to Mr. Richard Dickson, who lives and works in Baton Rouge. She testified that her mailing address is 9472 Boone Drive in Baton Rouge and that, since the April 26, 2017 restraining order was issued, she has resided with C.H. at 7300 Lakeshore Drive in New Orleans. She testified that she has abided by the restraining order and further that she has never prevented Mr. Holley from exercising visitation. Although she testified that a relocation to Baton Rouge would make visitation with Mr. Holley more difficult, she maintained that she would still drive to Jefferson Parish to allow Mr. Holley to exercise his visitation with C.H. Ms. Holley introduced into evidence a map reflecting that the mileage, in straight-line or radial miles, from the child's principal residence in New Orleans to the proposed Baton Rouge address is 64 miles.
Ms. Holley discussed the MapQuest route suggested by Mr. Holley and testified that the route sh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Redmann
...placed in the record. Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Services, Inc. , 07-2143 (La. 5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84, 88 ; Holley v. Holley , 17-325 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/20/17), 232 So.3d 717, 727-28. Although a document entitled "Consent Judgment" is located in this record, it was not properly offered and acc......
-
State v. Titus
...The basis of Ashley's motion for new trial pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1972 was her post-trial discovery of Holley v. Holley, 2017-325 (La. App. 5th Cir. 11/20/17), 232 So.3d 717. In Holley, the court held that the appropriate method used to measure "miles" under the relocation statutes is ......
-
Pappas v. Hand Surgical Assocs.
...security is dispensed with by law. The security shall indemnify the person [13] In brief, HSA represents this quote as coming from Holley v. Holley, supra other circuits have held that . a remand may be appropriate, . this Circuit has consistently found that the language provided in La. C.C......
-
Pappas v. Hand Surgical Assocs.
...or enjoined for the payment of costs incurred and damages sustained. … [13] In brief, HSA represents this quote as coming from Holley v. Holley, supra other circuits have held that … a remand may be appropriate, … this Circuit has consistently found that the language provided in La. C.C.P. ......