Forrest Keith Cochran v. Katherine Sawyer Forman

Supreme Court of Louisiana
March 09, 2021
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
FORREST KEITH COCHRAN
VS.
KATHERINE SAWYER FORMAN
No.2020-CJ-01400
_ _ _ _
_ _
IN R
E: Katherine Sawyer Forman - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Writ Of
Certiorari, Parish of West Feliciana, 20th Judicial District Court Number(s) 23235,
1st Circuit Court of Appeal, Number(s) 2019-CA-0527;
_ _ _ _ _ _
March 09, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
JDH
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
03/09/2021 "See News Release 009 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

03/09/21
SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2020-CJ-01400
FORREST KEITH COCHRAN
VS.
KATHERINE SAWYER FORMAN
On Writ of Certiorari to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal,
Parish of West Feliciana
PER CURIAM
The sole issue presented for our consideration in this child custody case is
whether the court of appeal erred in annulling the judgment of the district court based
on its finding the non-resident father was not given proper notice of the proceedings
pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and
Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”). For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment
of the court of appeal and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The facts are largely undisputed as concerns the issue before us. The mother,
a Louisiana resident, filed a Petition for Custody, Visitation, and Support on June 27,
2017, naming the father, a Mississippi resident, as defendant. The court set the matter
for hearing on August 9, 2017. Notice of the August 9, 2017 hearing was sent to the
father at his Mississippi address on June 28, 2017 by certified mail, but was returned
as unclaimed. The mother’s counsel filed an affidavit into the record attesting to
these facts on August 7, 2017. The matter proceeded to hearing on August 9, 2017,
and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the mother on August 10, 2017.

Notice of this judgment was sent to the father on August 11, 2017, but was returned
as “refused.” Notice of a September 7, 2017 hearing on the mother’s rule for
contempt was sent to father via certified mail on September 1, 2017. Although notice
was left at his residence, he never retrieved the mail. The mother filed an affidavit
attesting to these facts into the record on September 7, 2017, and a hearing took place
on the same day. Neither the father nor his counsel were present at this hearing, and
judgment was rendered in favor of the mother.
Subsequently, the father filed a petition to annul, asserting he was never
properly served with any of the petitions or judgments in this matter. Specifically,
he alleged the affidavits of service filed into the record of the Louisiana proceedings
failed to strictly comply with the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute, La. R.S. 13:3205.
The district court denied the petition to annul, finding the father received
proper notice under the UCCJEA. The father appealed. On appeal, a split panel of
the court of appeal held the father did not receive proper notice. Two judges
dissented and found the record established the father had actual notice of the
proceedings. Cochran v. Foreman, 2019-0527 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/8/20), ___ So. 3d
____.
The mother now seeks review in this court.
DISCUSSION
La. R.S. 13:1808 of the UCCJEA provides for notice to persons residing
outside of the state:
Notice required for the exercise of jurisdiction when a
person is outside this state may be given in a manner
prescribed by the law of this state for service of process
or by the law of the state in which the service is made.
Notice shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated
to give actual notice but may be by publication if other
2

means are not effective. [emphasis added].
In the case before us, it is undisputed the certified notice was sent to the
father’s correct address, yet he failed to claim it. At the hearing on the motion to
annul, the father candidly admitted that he had “gotten something in the mail” about
a hearing in Louisiana, that he showed this to his lawyer, and that his lawyer advised
that he did not have “to worry about that,” since they had already filed pleadings in
Mississippi. The father testified that he “followed his [lawyer’s] advice and ignored
it.” This testimony clearly establishes the father was aware of the Louisiana
proceedings, but made a conscious decision not to attend the hearing or take any other
steps to protect his rights.
Nonetheless, the majority of the court of appeal found the phrase “in a manner
prescribed by the law of this state for service of process” in La. R.S.13:1808
implicitly incorporates the requirements of the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute. The
court reasoned the mother did not comply with La. R.S. 13:3205 of the Long-Arm
Statute, which provides no hearing on a contradictory motion can take place until
thirty days after filing of an affidavit showing notice was sent.
We find the court of appeal erred in holding La. R.S. 13:1808 incorporates the
requirements of the Long-Arm Statute. Nothing in La. R.S. 13:1808 mandates service
pursuant to the Long-Arm Statute; rather, the statute is phrased in permissive terms,
providing notice “may be given in a manner prescribed by the law of this state for
service of process. . . .” [emphasis added]. The only mandatory requirement is that
“[n]otice shall be given in a manner reasonably calculated to give actual notice. . . .”
[emphasis added]. See Martinez v. Reed, 490 So.2d 303, 307 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1986)
(holding “the only question is whether notice was given in a manner ‘reasonably
calculated to give actual notice’ which would permit the Civil District Court to
3

exercise jurisdiction over the Reeds”); see also Miller v. Mills, 64 So.3d 1023, 1027
(Miss. App. 2011) (discussing La. R.S.13:1808 and explaining “while it is mandatory
to provide notice to an out-of-state parent ‘in a manner reasonably calculated to give
actual notice,’ it is possible to provide such notice without complying with
Louisiana’s ‘long-arm’ statute.’”). Applying the reasoning of these decisions, we find
La. R.S. 13:1808 mandates only that notice be given in a manner “reasonably
calculated to give actual notice” and does not mandate compliance with the Louisiana
Long-Arm Statute.1
Considering the facts of this case, we find the district court properly found the
father received adequate notice of the Louisiana proceedings pursuant to La. R.S.
13:1808. The court of appeal erred in reversing that finding.
DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted. The judgment of the court of
appeal is reversed. The case is remanded to court of appeal to consider any remaining
issues in the appeal.
1 To the extent Downey v. Downey, 2010-1853 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/11/11) (unpublished),
conflicts with this holding, it is overruled.
4