McEntyre v. McEntyre
| Decision Date | 05 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | 19-9 |
| Parties | DELORES MCCARTHY MCENTYRE v. MICHAEL AARON MCENTYRE |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, John E. Conery, and Van H. Kyzar, Judges.
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
Delores McCarthy McEntyre
Michael Aaron McEntyre
The plaintiff, Delores McCarthy McEntyre, filed a rule for contempt and a rule to enforce consent judgment, claiming that her former husband, defendant Michael McEntyre, had failed to comply with two consent judgments signed by the parties in 2014. Both judgments required the defendant to pay the plaintiff a salary for two years. The plaintiff also sought to enforce a 2014 partial act of partition and community property settlement, requiring the defendant to execute a promissory note to the bank holding the mortgage on property the plaintiff received in the partition. The defendant reconvened and sought a contempt judgment against the plaintiff.
Following a hearing, the trial court entered a judgment of contempt against the defendant, and ordered him to pay the salary owed to the plaintiff with judicial interest, to execute the necessary promissory note to the bank, and assessed the defendant with all costs. The trial court denied the defendant's rule for contempt against the plaintiff and denied all attorney fees sought by both parties. For the following reasons we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.
Michael Aaron McEntyre (Mr. McEntyre) and Delores McCarthy McEntyre (Ms. McEntyre) were married on July 3, 1999. The parties separated on August 7, 2013, and were divorced by virtue of an original consent judgment dated June 18, 2014, which was signed by both parties and filed in open court. By the original consent judgment, Mr. McEntyre agreed to hire Ms. McEntyre "as an employee of McEntyre Consulting, Inc. at a salary of $5,000 per month[,]" as demanded in the petition for divorce, "until October of 2015, at which time employment shallterminate without further action of the court." Ms. McEntyre was "ordered to self [-] terminate [her] employment should she sell the acreage on Sandy Lake Rd."1
On December 16, 2014, an amended consent judgment, also signed by both parties, was rendered in order "to amend the wording of the previous consent judgment." It provided in pertinent part, that Mr. McEntyre "shall" continue to employ Ms. McEntyre at a monthly salary of $5,000.00, as set forth in the couple's October 11, 2013 original petition for divorce until October of 2015, "at which time employment shall terminate without further action of this court." Ms. McEntyre was "ordered to a reduced employment salary of $ 2,500.00 should she sell acreage on Sandy Lake Rd[.]"
The amended consent judgment also provided, "The acreage on Sandy Lake Road is divided into three parcels ... should [Ms. McEntyre] only be able to sell the acreage piecemeal, each sold parcel shall decrease her income in the amount of $1,000.00."2 Ms. McEntyre testified at the hearing that both consent judgments referring to her employment with McEntyre Consulting, Inc. and the payment of $5,000.00 per month were suggested by Mr. McEntyre. She explained that they had nothing to do with her actual employment with the company but were related to the divorce and her spousal support.
In accordance with the original petition for divorce, beginning in October of 2013, Mr. McEntyre began consistently paying Ms. McEntyre a salary of$5,000.00 a month from McEntyre Consulting, Inc.3 In January of 2015, shortly after agreeing to the amended consent judgment in mid-December of 2014, Mr. McEntyre contended that his business had fallen on hard times due to the decline in the oil and gas industry. As a result, Mr. McEntyre's "salary payments" to Ms. McEntyre were reduced to only seven payments totaling $10,000.00 for the next six months, beginning on January 24, and ending on June 30, 2015. All but one of the payments, a wire transfer on February 3, 2015 from McEntyre Consulting, Inc., came from Mr. McEntyre's personal bank account. Mr. McEntyre testified that he began to personally pay the $5,000.00 to Ms. McEntyre to help her pay her bills based on the agreement in the two consent judgments
In correspondence postmarked June 1, 2015, Mr. McEntyre informed Ms. McEntyre that due to the situation in the "oilfield" he would be sending money from his personal account. "There will be no consulting money until I go back to consulting." Mr. McEntyre indicated that he was heading to "Iowa on a construction job[,]" and would be "looking for consulting work in a wide range mainly overseas[.]" Mr. McEntyre further expressed his apologies for the inconvenience.
When additional payments were not forthcoming, on May 5, 2017, Ms. McEntyre filed a "Rule For Contempt And Rule To Enforce," (Rule) seeking "back salary payments" of $37,500.00 as ordered by the trial court in the consent judgment dated December 16, 2014. Based on Mr. McEntyre's failure to pay Ms. McEntyre as ordered by the court, Ms. McEntyre asked the trial court to hold himin contempt for "his willful disobedience of the orders of [the] court." Ms. McEntyre also sought attorney fees for bringing suit and all costs.
Ms. McEntyre also asked the trial court to enforce the "Partial Act of Partition and Community Property Settlement" (Partition), which was executed by both parties on December 10, 2014, and entered into the conveyance records on December 12, 2014. In the Partition, Mr. McEntyre agreed to "sign a promissory note in favor of Catahoula LaSalle Bank" (Bank) in the amount of $50,000.00. The Bank was the mortgage holder on a property owned by Ms. McEntyre. She had paid interest on the note due to Mr. McEntyre's failure to secure the mortgage with the required promissory note. Ms. McEntyre asked the court to order Mr. McEntyre to sign the promissory note and to reimburse the amount of interest paid by her on the note to the Bank.
On January 29, 2018, Mr. McEntyre filed an answer to Ms. McEntyre's Rule, claiming that Ms. McEntyre had sold some of the Sandy Lake Road property, which complicated the issue of contempt. Further, Mr. McEntyre claimed that he had executed the $50,000.00 promissory note and, even if he failed to do so, that was not a basis for holding him in contempt.
On May 24, 2018, the morning of the hearing, Mr. McEntyre filed, in open court, a "Rule for Contempt and Rule to Enforce for Court Costs & Attorney's Fees." Mr. McEntyre asked the court to hold Ms. McEntyre in contempt of court "when she stopped paying for credit card debt referenced in the June 18, 2018.
Consent Judgment."
A hearing was held on May 24, 2018, on the competing Rules filed on behalf of Mr. and Ms. McEntyre. Both parties testified, followed by Cody Johnson, Ms. McEntyre's son. At the close of evidence, the trial court allowed the parties tosubmit post-hearing memoranda. After receipt of the memoranda, the trial court issued its judgment on July 31, 2018.
The trial court found that the consent judgment dated, June 18, 2014, and the amended consent judgment, dated December 16, 2014, were voluntarily agreed to by the parties, ratified by the court, and therefore were proper consent judgments. The trial court found Mr. McEntyre had the ability to pay Ms. McEntyre's salary when he signed the consent judgments. Therefore, the trial court found him in contempt for failing to timely pay Ms. McEntyre the $37,500.00 payment within thirty days of judicial demand. The trial court awarded judicial interest from that date but denied attorney fees requested by Ms. McEntyre in her Rule.
The court specifically "recognized and ratified" the Partition dated December 10, 2014, "in all of its terms and particulars" and ordered Mr. McEntyre to "immediately pay the balance due on the promissory note in favor of the Catahoula LaSalle Bank in the amount of $50,000.00 (or in the alternative make such arrangements as are agreeable to [Ms. McEntyre] ... and the ... Bank." Mr. McEntyre was also ordered to reimburse Ms. McEntyre the payments made by her on the note to the Bank.
The trial court denied Mr. McEntyre's request for an order of contempt, finding that Ms. McEntyre "did not assume any credit card indebtedness in either the Consent Judgment dated June 18, 2014, the amended Consent Judgment dated December 16, 2014 or the Partial Act of Partition and Community Property Settlement dated December 10, 2014." The trial court also denied Mr. McEntyre's request for attorney fees and assessed him with all costs. Mr. McEntyre has filed a timely suspensive appeal from the trial court's July 31, 2018 judgment.
To continue reading
Request your trial