McDonald v. McDonald

Decision Date04 March 2009
Docket NumberNo. CA 08-1165.,CA 08-1165.
Citation10 So.3d 780
PartiesMary Ed McDONALD v. Ronald A. McDONALD.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Kerry Lyndon Spruill, Marksville, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellee Mary Ed McDonald.

Keith Wayne Manuel, Attorney At Law, Marksville, LA, for Defendant/Appellant Ronald A. McDonald.

Derrick M. Whittington, Whittington Law Firm, Marksville, LA, for Defendant/Appellant Ronald A. McDonald.

Court composed of SYLVIA R. COOKS, J. DAVID PAINTER, and SHANNON J. GREMILLION, Judges.

GREMILLION, Judge.

The defendant, Ronald McDonald, appeals the judgment of the trial court holding him in contempt and sentencing him to ninety days in jail. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ronald McDonald and Mary McDonald, formerly residents of Pearl River, Mississippi, were divorced in February 2005 after eighteen years of marriage. Ronald thereafter moved to Plaucheville, Louisiana. In October 2007, Mary filed a Petition to Make Judgments Executory in Avoyelles Parish concerning judgments for alimony, past due support, and contempt that were rendered by the Chancery Court of Pearl River County, Mississippi. Following a hearing in November 2007, the trial court made executory (1) the Final Judgment of Divorce (which included a property settlement agreement), (2) An April 6, 2006 judgment (reiterating that Ronald pay Mary $475 per month from his retirement plan and that Mary relinquish rights to Ronald's Louisiana Sheriff's Pension Fund) and, (3) the Judgment of Contempt filed on October 18, 2006 (which found Ronald $4,228 in arrearages in alimony owed to Mary).

Mary then filed a Motion to Examine Judgment Debtor. Ronald filed a Rule for Contempt of Court or Rescind Property Settlement claiming that Mary had failed to execute certain documents which would relinquish her claim over his Louisiana Sheriff's Pension Fund. Mary then filed a Rule for Contempt of Court. Following a hearing in March 2008 on both Mary and Ronald's rules for contempt, the trial court found Ronald in contempt of court for non-payment of spousal support in the amount of $3,286.50. It further found with regard to Ronald's Louisiana Sheriff's Pension Fund:

Although the evidence presented at hearing failed to reveal to this Court any legal basis for this claim, the record was held open to allow Ronald McDonald the opportunity to submit further information to prove this claim to the Court. The information obtained by Ronald McDonald subsequent to the hearing actually proved that his Rule for Contempt of Court is totally and completely without merit. This Court received correspondence from Andrea Aymond, Attorney for Ronald McDonald, dated May 8, 2008 with attachments from the Louisiana Sheriff's Pension and Relief Fund which confirm that the failure of Ronald McDonald to receive maximum benefits was through no fault whatsoever of Mary McDonald. In fact, if there was any fault to be assessed, that fault would be upon Ronald McDonald.

The trial court further found that Ronald had been fully reimbursed from the Sheriff's pension fund and it further recalled his rule for contempt at his costs. The trial court noted that Ronald had "absolute contempt" for Mary and sentenced him to serve a period of ninety days in the Avoyelles Parish jail. The trial court held that Ronald could purge himself of the ninety day sentence by paying Mary $3,286.50 plus attorney's fees of $500 and all court costs associated with the rule for contempt. Ronald filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment, for New Trial and Alternatively for Exceptions of No Cause of and No Right of Action, which were denied, with prejudice, by the trial court. Ronald was ordered to begin his ninety day sentence. Ronald filed a supervisory writ to this court, which was denied because an adequate remedy was available through appeal. Ronald now appeals. Mary answered the appeal and seeks damages for frivolous appeal.

ISSUES

Ronald assigns as error:

1. The trial court abused its discretion when it held him in contempt of court.

2. The trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to the maximum sentence allowed pursuant to La.R.S. 13:4611.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Ronald claims that he should not have been held in contempt because the underlying judgments of divorce, including the property settlement, issued by the Chancery Court in Mississippi were unlawful under Louisiana law and, therefore, could not be made executory by a Louisiana court because they were against the public policy of this state. We disagree. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 2541 states:

A. A party seeking recognition or execution by a Louisiana court of a judgment or decree of a court of the Untied States or a territory thereof, or of any other state, or of any foreign country may either seek enforcement pursuant to R.S. 13:4241, et. seq., or bring an ordinary proceeding against the judgment debtor in the proper Louisiana court, to have the judgment or decree recognized and made the judgment of the Louisiana court.

B. In the latter case, a duly authenticated copy of the judgment or decree must be annexed to the petition.

Mary complied with the statutory requirements and the Louisiana court ordered Ronald to pay her $475 per month less what she received from his military retirement. Ronald's claim that a Louisiana court must determine whether Mary is in need and free from fault pursuant to La.Civ.Code arts. 111 and 112 is without merit. The determination of whether Mary was entitled to the $475 per month award has already been decided by the Mississippi court. Mary now merely seeks to enforce the money judgment she has against Ronald. Any issues that Ronald has with the original Mississippi judgments should have been raised in the court that issued the judgment.

Ronald urges that Daigle v.Daigle, 06-346 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/06), 940 So.2d 891, writ denied, 06-2914 (La.2/16/07), 949 So.2d 418 supports his position. We disagree. Daigle is totally inapplicable to the facts at hand. In Daigle, both parties were Louisiana residents and the property settlement agreement was in contravention of public policy.

"A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ryan v. Calcasieu Parish Police Jury
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • November 18, 2020
    ...Harley-Davidson Credit Corp. v. Davis , 13-214, p. 7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 127 So.3d 50, 55 (citing McDonald v. McDonald , 08-1165 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/4/09), 10 So.3d 780 )."A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of just......
  • Mason v. Mason
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • October 5, 2016
  • Bailey v. Bailey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • March 11, 2020
  • Noland v. Noland
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • September 20, 2017
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT