Willrige v. Willrige
| Docket Number | 23-47 |
| Decision Date | 02 November 2023 |
| Parties | MARTIN C. WILLRIGE, III. v. LETITIA B. WILLRIGE |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
APPEAL FROM THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST MARTIN, NO. 90752 HONORABLE CURTIS SIGUR, DISTRICT JUDGE
Rudy Willie Gorrell, Jr. Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT: Martin C. Willrige, III.
Lucretia P. Pecantte Attorney at Law COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE: Letitia B. Willrige
Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Ledricka J. Thierry, and Wilbur L. Stiles, Judges.
Appellant Martin Willrige appeals the trial court's judgment adopting the hearing officer's recommendation and granting Appellee Letitia Willrige's Rule for Contempt without considering his Objection to the Hearing Officer Conference Report. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse the trial court's judgment adopting the hearing officer's February 2, 2022 recommendations as a final judgment and remand the matter to the district court to conduct a hearing on the singular issue of Mr. Willrige's objection to said recommendations. We further affirm the remainder of the trial court's June 13, 2022 judgment.
Martin Willrige and Letitia B. Willrige were married on November 5 2005. They have two children, a son born on May 5, 2006, and a daughter born on August 8, 2007. On July 26, 2021, Mr Willrige filed a Petition for 103(1) Divorce with Minor Children and a Rule for Custody, Visitation, Child Support Spousal Support, Paternity or Other Relief. In response thereto, Mrs. Willrige filed on August 9, 2021 Answers and Reconventional Demand and Answers to Rule for Custody Visitation, Child Support, Spousal Support, Paternity or Other Relief.
On August 19, 2021, both Mr. Willrige and Mrs. Willrige attended a hearing officer conference to address the issues of custody and child support. It is noted that while Mrs. Willrige was represented by counsel at this hearing officer conference, Mr. Willrige appeared in proper person. At the conclusion of the conference, the hearing officer issued a Hearing Officer Conference Report in which she made the following recommendations for custody and child support: the parties shall share the joint custody of the children, approximately shared on a 40/60 split; Mrs. Willrige is designated as the domiciliary parent; Mr. Willrige shall pay child support to Mrs. Willrige in the amount of $1,484.00 per month, payable in equal installments of $742.00 on the fifth and twentieth days of each calendar month[1]; Mr. Willrige owes approximately $989.00 prorated from August 10 until August 31, 2021, due to the retroactivity of the award of child support; Mrs. Willrige shall pay the registration, private school tuition, and other mandatory school expenses of the children in a timely manner; Mrs. Willrige shall maintain health and hospitalization insurance coverage on the children; Mr. Willrige shall be entitled to claim their son as dependent for all state and federal income tax purposes; Mrs. Willrige shall be entitled to claim their daughter for all state and federal income tax purposes; for any advanced credit for the children that Mr. Willrige may receive after August 9, 2021, he shall give Mrs. Willrige thirty-five percent of the payments, within thirty days of payment by the IRS; Mrs. Willrige does not show a need for interim spousal support; Mr. Willrige shall have the exclusive use and possession of the Navigator and two pick-ups, for which he shall be responsible for all associated consumer credit obligations and insurance obligations; and Mrs. Willrige shall have the exclusive use and possession of the BMW, for which she shall be responsible for all associated consumer credit obligations and insurance obligations.
Both parties timely filed objections to the Hearing Officer Conference Report and the matter was scheduled for trial on December 14, 2021. While awaiting trial, a Judgment Adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommendations was signed by the trial court on October 1, 2021, adopting the hearing officer's recommendations of August 19, 2021 as a temporary judgment of the court. Mr. Willrige, having retained counsel, filed on November 10, 2021 a Motion for a Watermeier Hearing. When the matter came up for trial on December 14, 2021, the trial court noted on the record that Mrs. Willrige's attorney had requested a continuance due to the extensive testimony expected at the trial and the Watermeier hearing requested by Mr. Willrige. Thus, the Watermeier hearing was rescheduled for March 22, 2022, with the trial to immediately follow.
On December 28, 2021, Mrs. Willrige filed a Rule for Contempt alleging that Mr. Willrige had willfully failed and refused to comply with the October 1, 2021 judgment in that he had not paid the court ordered child support for September, October, and November 2021, and had not paid Mrs. Willrige thirty-five percent of the money he received from the IRS for advanced credit for the children within thirty days of payment. The Rule for Contempt was scheduled for a hearing officer conference on February 2, 2022, with the trial to be held on March 22, 2022 should either party file an objection to the hearing officer's recommendations.
Mrs. Willrige and her attorney attended the February 2, 2022 hearing officer conference; however, Mr. Willrige and his attorney did not. After considering Mrs. Willrige's evidence, the hearing officer recommended that Mr. Willrige be found in contempt of the October 1, 2021 judgment for failing to pay to Mrs. Willrige the full amount of child support for September 2021 through January 2022 and failing to pay any of the tax credit. The hearing officer calculated the total amount of Mr. Willrige's arrearages to be $3,289.00 as of January 31, 2022, said amount to be made executory. She further recommended that he pay attorney fees in the amount of $750.00 directly to Mrs. Willrige's counsel, on or before March 21, 2022 at 4:30 p.m., and that he be ordered to pay the costs associated with the filing of Mrs. Willrige's rule for contempt. Due to Mr. Willrige's failure to remain current in his child support obligation, the hearing officer recommended that the right to claim both children as dependents for tax purposes should be allocated to Mrs. Willrige, the domiciliary parent. It was further recommended that, having been found to be in contempt of court, Mr. Willrige be sentenced to serve thirty days in the parish jail and fined $500.00, said sentence to be suspended on the following conditions: (1) he become current in the amount of arrears owed to Mrs. Willrige by or before March 21, 2022 at 4:30 p.m., and remain current in his ongoing support obligation; (2) he pay all court costs and attorney fees by March 21, 2022 at 12:00 p.m.; and (3) he not be found to be in arrears or in contempt of court in any further proceedings.
On February 9, 2022, Mr. Willrige filed an Objection to Hearing Officer Conference Report, objecting to the February 2, 2022 hearing officer recommendations on the grounds that (1) he did not willfully disobey an order of the court, (2) he was never ordered to pay arrears, thus he cannot be held in contempt for any failure to pay any arrears, and (3) Mrs. Willrige refused to pay her portion of the car insurance for the BMW. Also on February 9, 2022, Mr. Willrige filed his own Rule for Contempt, alleging that Mrs. Willrige failed to pay their son's private school tuition for the months of June, July, August, and September 2021 and refused to give Mr. Willrige credit or reimbursement for his having paid the tuition for those months. He further alleged that Mrs. Willrige failed to pay the car insurance and car note for the BMW, as ordered by the October 1, 2021 judgment, forcing him to pay the car insurance. Mr. Willrige's rule for contempt was not scheduled for a hearing officer conference. It was simply scheduled for trial on March 22, 2022, the same date as all other pending matters.
The trial of these matters was held over the course of two days, March 22 and March 30, 2022. The court first addressed Mrs. Willrige's rule for contempt against Mr. Willrige. Mrs. Willrige's attorney informed the trial court that neither Mr. Willrige nor his attorney appeared at the February 2, 2022 hearing officer conference, and therefore, per the local rules of the 16th Judicial District Court, Mr. Willrige had waived his right to object to the hearing officer's recommendations. She asked the trial court to adopt the hearing officer's February 2, 2022 recommendations finding Mr. Willrige in contempt as the judgment of the court since no objection had been properly filed.
The trial court confirmed with the minute clerk that the service return in the record verified Mr. Willrige was personally served through his attorney of record on January 7, 2022 with notice of the February 2, 2022 hearing officer conference. Neither Mr. Willrige nor his attorney gave any explanation to the trial court why they did not attend the February 2, 2022 hearing officer conference. Mr. Willrige's attorney did, however, argue vehemently that he felt Mr. Willrige had properly and timely filed an objection to the February 2, 2022 hearing officer's recommendations and the trial court should hold a trial de novo on the allegations of contempt. After carefully considering the matter and applicable court rules, the trial court provided counsel for both parties with a copy of the local rule for the 16th Judicial District Court, Appendix 35.5, directing their attention to section E, which the judge read aloud into the record:
A party who, after having been duly cited and served with process, fails to appear or remain for the duration of a Hearing Officer Conference waives the right to...
To continue reading
Request your trial