Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Halcomb v. Halcomb, 352 So. 2d 1013.

99 citing documents.

Kellie Descant Cahn v. Mike Cahn La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
Halcomb v. Halcomb, 761 -17 (La.
Steven R. Keene v. Ashley M. Holdsworth Consolidated with Ashley M. Holdsworth v. Steven Ray Keene La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
Waites v. Waites 256 So. 3d 539 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 5 Cir. 5/31/12), , 595 (citing Halcomb v. Halcomb , , 1016 (La.
Wilson v. Wilson 237 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
App. 5 Cir. 06/23/09), , 439 (citing Halcomb v. Halcomb , (La.
Marilyn Williams Hedlesky v. Steven Hedlesky La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
3 Cir. 1988) (emphasis added), this court stated: -379 (La.1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court commented on its decision in Halcomb[ v. Halcomb, ], as follows: demandable[;]’” thus, compensation was “not available in these proceedings to offset or reduce the debt owed by [the husband] for past due alimony.” 6 Ms. Williams refers this court to the provisions of La.R.S.
Hedlesky v. Hedlesky 166 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
3 Cir.1988) (emphasis added), this court stated: -379 (La.1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court commented on its decision in Halcomb [v. Halcomb, ], as follows: |7“In Halcomb we held that a husband could not unilaterally reduce his child support payments by a proportionate amount because one of several children has reached the age of majority.
John Ford Dietz v. Anne Bennett Morrison Dietz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
In Re: Jdh Applying for Intrafamily Adoption La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
In re JDH 150 So. 3d 651 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Delesdernier v. Delesdernier 95 So. 3d 588 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Bourgeois v. Bourgeois, 09-106 (La.App.
Chauvin v. Chauvin 69 So. 3d 1192 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Kaye v. Rebennack 60 So. 3d 1276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the Court addressed the issue of whether the husband had the right to unilaterally reduce the in globo support award proportionately as each of his four children arrived at the age of majority or became emancipated.
Hunter v. Hunter 21 So. 3d 1032 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Bourgeois v. Bourgeois 16 So. 3d 431 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Bergeron v. Bergeron 6 So. 3d 948 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Mizell v. Mizell, supra.
Heflin v. Heflin 1 So. 3d 820 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
Richard McDaniel v. Dana Maureen Vestal McDaniel La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
McDaniel v. McDaniel 878 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Mizell v. Mizell 839 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
Rachal v. Rachal 795 So. 2d 1286 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Dugdale v. Dugdale 771 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Lacour v. Lacour 763 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
-1017 (La.1977); Burnette v. Burnette, 98-0498 (La.App.
Brannan v. Talbott 728 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Burnette v. Burnette 720 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Halcomb v. Halcomb, *761 -17 (La.1977).
Welborne v. Welborne 694 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Serrate v. Serrate 684 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Palmer v. Palmer 665 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Freeman v. Freeman 659 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
our supreme court stated, Here the wife was by the terms of the judgment awarded the sum of $100 per week "child support assistance" and charged with the legal care, custody and control of the four children, issue of the marriage.
Trisler v. Trisler 622 So. 2d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Sillis v. Hernandez 608 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Gomez v. Gomez 609 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Angelica v. Angelica 608 So. 2d 256 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
Hendricks v. Hendricks 594 So. 2d 1129 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Hawkins v. Hawkins 592 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
the husband unilaterally reduced child support payments as each of his four children reached the age of majority.
Savage v. Savage 589 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Fontenot 587 So. 2d 771 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Robinson v. Robinson 561 So. 2d 966 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Relying on the Pisciotto decision, (La.
Lavergne v. Lavergne 556 So. 2d 918 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Dunn v. Dunn 546 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
DeVillier v. DeVillier 543 So. 2d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Guidry v. Guidry 535 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
In his written reasons for judgment, the trial judge stated: “This Court finds that Carlene Kay Gui-dry has not standing to sue for any claims of support for the major child, Michael Dean Guidry, (see Holcomb v. Holcomb [sic], ” Although this is a correct statement of the law, it is not germane to the issue before the court.
McDonald v. McDonald 520 So. 2d 1114 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
later applied the rule as enunciated in Pisciotto, supra, to child support judgments.
Overruled Landry v. Landry 516 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
In reasons for judgment the trial court stated: Pertinent to the decision in this matter are two cases: [(La.1977)] [(La.App.1st Cir.1983)].
LaBove v. LaBove 503 So. 2d 670 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Boudreaux v. Harrington 496 So. 2d 1278 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Patrick v. Patrick 496 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Brown v. Brown 493 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
Lafleur v. Lafleur 490 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Palmer v. Palmer 488 So. 2d 229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
and White v. Morris, 236 La.
Brantley v. Brantley 488 So. 2d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986