Littleton v. Littleton
| Decision Date | 14 October 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-CA-273,87-CA-273 |
| Citation | 514 So.2d 248 |
| Parties | Donna Bordelon LITTLETON v. Harrison W. LITTLETON, Jr. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Donna Bordelon Littleton, In Pro. Per.
Theodore W. Nass, The Law Offices of Nass, Wiebelt & Nass, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Plauche F. Villere, Jr., New Orleans, appointed mediator appellee.
Before CHEHARDY, KLIEBERT and GAUDIN, JJ.
Harrison W. Littleton, Jr., the former husband, takes this appeal from a judgment rendered after a hearing on his rule to decrease a prior child support award and his former wife's rule to increase the award. He appeals that portion of the judgment which orders, adjudges and decrees that he entered into a contract to pay his former wife's car note and hence must pay her $150.00 per month until the debt is extinguished. In a brief filed in this court the husband attacks the judgment on alternative grounds: 1
(1) the award represents a modification of the prior child support award, despite the absence of a showing by the wife of a change in circumstances justifying the increase; or
(2) the award represents an adjudication of a contractual dispute which cannot be accomplished by a rule nisi and for which he was denied proper notice and the opportunity to defend, in violation of procedural due process rights.
The wife has not appealed, answered the husband's appeal, or filed a brief responding to the husband's arguments. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
In conjunction with a judgment of divorce rendered on November 14th, 1984, the wife was awarded custody of the minor child born of the marriage and the husband was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $325.00 per month. On August 8th, 1986 the wife filed a pleading entitled "Rule nisi for contempt, cumulation of past due child support, attorney's fees and to increase child support." Shortly thereafter the husband filed a motion for joint custody or, alternatively, increased visition, to reduce child support, and for attorney's fees and costs for defending the wife's cumulation and contempt rule. On October 8th, 1986 the wife amended her rule to delete the arrearage allegation and to set forth the new allegation that the husband agreed to pay her car note and failed to do so, causing her "to borrow money from relatives and to forego necessities in order to make the monthly payments." It was on this premise that the wife sought an increase in child support.
The parties appeared before the court on October 9th, 1986, at which time it was agreed that a mediator would be appointed for the purpose of resolving the custody issue. The support issue was continued until November 20th, 1986, and the contempt rule was dismissed without hearing. When the parties appeared on November 20th, 1986 they informed the court that the custody issue was settled through mediation in favor of joint custody. The court thereafter took up the support issue and enunciated the following reasons for rendering judgment in the wife's favor.
It is clear from the wording of the judgment and the supporting oral reasons that the court did not award an increase in child support but rather recognized and enforced what it considered to be a contract made between the parties sometime after the rendering of the divorce decree. Thus, the husband's contention that the award constitutes a modification of the support award without the requisite showing is misplaced. However, the husband's contention that the court erred in converting the support rule into an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
29,785 La.App. 2 Cir. 8/20/97, Havener v. Havener
...proceeding rules and principles established in our system adapted to the nature of the case. Ussery, supra; Littleton v. Littleton, 514 So.2d 248 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). La. C.C.P. art. 862 grants the trial court authority to render a final judgment granting the relief to which the party in......
-
Ussery v. Ussery
...defend in an orderly proceeding rules and principles established in our system adapted to the nature of the case. Littleton v. Littleton, 514 So.2d 248 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 862 grants the trial court authority to render a final judgment granting ......
-
Interdiction of F.T.E.
...(La.1990). The essential elements of "due process of law" are notice and an opportunity to be heard and to defend. Littleton v. Littleton, 514 So.2d 248 (La.App.5th Cir.1987). F.T.E.'s constitutional attack in this case is vague. We note that he did not specially plead the unconstitutionali......
-
Succession of McKean
...to decide a controversy which the parties have not regularly brought before it. Ussery, 583 So.2d at 841; Littleton v. Littleton, 514 So.2d 248, 250 (La.App. 5th Cir.1987). Upon the pleadings before the trial court, the only issues presented regarding the 7.15 acre tract were whether the pr......