Clerk of Court For the Court State Of Louisiana, Department Of Children And Family Services In The Interest Of E. R. And O. R. v. Kirk Redmann

The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
Clerk of Court
For the Court
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES IN THE
INTEREST OF E. R. AND O. R.
VS.
KIRK REDMANN
No.2020-CJ-00338
_ _ _ _ _ _
IN RE: Kirk Redmann - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of Certiorari,
Parish of Jefferson, Jefferson Juvenile Court Number(s) 2006- NS-49-0, Court of
Appeal, Fifth Circuit, Number(s) 19-CA-146;
_ _ _ _ _ _
July 31, 2020
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
BJJ
JDH
SJC
JTG
JHB
Weimer, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Crain, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Supreme Court of Louisiana
July 31, 2020
07/31/2020 "See News Release 028 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

1
07/31/20
S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2020-CJ-00338
S
TATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES IN THE INTEREST OF E. R. AND O. R.
VS.
KIRK REDMANN
ON
WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL,
FIFTH CIRCUIT, PARISH OF JEFFERSON
P
ER CURIAM
Writ gr
anted. Helen Meyer Redmann (“mother”) and Kirk Redmann
(“father”) were parties to a consent judgment wherein they agreed on a support
award in which the father would pay 54% of specified expenses of the children,
including premiums for their health insurance coverage. The father
subsequently filed a motion seeking, among other things, a credit against the
mother for her proportionate share of premiums for the children’s health
insurance coverage, asserting he had paid 100% of the children’s health
insurance premiums for several years.
Relative to child support determinations, La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4) provides:
(4) “
Health insurance premiums” means the actual amount paid
by a party for providing health insurance on behalf of the
child. It does not include any amount paid by an employer or any
amounts
paid for coverage of any other persons. If more than one
dependent is covered by health insurance which is paid through a
lump-sum dependent-coverage premium, and not all of such
dependents are the subject of the guidelines calculation, the cost
of the coverage shall be prorated among the dependents covered
before being applied to the guidelines. (Emphasis added)
The
statute does not mandate a particular method or require a specific type of
evidence to establish “the actual amount paid” for health insurance premiums.
At the hearing in the district court, the father testified he paid his second
former wife, Terri, $165 per month from September 2007 through November

2

2010 for the children’s health insuran ce premiums. The father testified he
relied on Terri’s assertions that $165 was the cost of the children’s premiums
and he introduced canceled checks to substantiate those payments.
The district court found the father was entitled to reimbursement. While
no direct evidence in the form of a detailed paystub or bill from the insurer was
introduced to establish the actual amount of the premium paid by Terri for the
children’s insurance, the district court made a factual finding, based on its
credibility determination of the father’s testimony, that the father presented
adequate evidence to establish he “actually paid” $165 per month for the
children’s insurance. The court of appeal found the father did not prove the
actual amount he paid for health insurance for his children from September
2007 until November 2010, and thus held the district court erred in allowing a
reimbursement credit. We disagree. It is well-settled that a court of appeal may
not set aside a trial court’s finding of fact in the absence of “manifest error” or
unless it is “clearly wrong.” Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So. 2d
731, 735 (citing Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989)). Considering
the particular facts of this case, we do not find the district court’s ruling to be
clearly wrong. The district court’s factual finding is supported by the father’s
canceled checks. Furthermore, there is no dispute the children were covered
through Terri’s insurer. Therefore, we find no manifest error in the district
court’s finding that the father paid $165/month for the children’s health
insurance premiums from September 2007 until November 2010.
Thus, we reverse that portion of the ruling of the court of appeal which
held the father was not entitled to a reimbursement credit, and we find the
father is entitled to reimbursement equaling 46% of the health insurance
premiums he paid from September 2007 until November 2010, as already
determined by the district court.