91 CA 2006 Precedential Remanded Processed

Aguilar v. Wilson

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed October 16, 1992 · 607 So. 2d 837

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 23, 1992 613 So. 2d 228; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., April 10, 1992 597 So. 2d 1186

Cited by

Finn v. Jackowski 779 So. 2d 917 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Kelly v. Kelly 775 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Baxter 759 So. 2d 1079 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2000
Drobnak v. Drobnak 708 So. 2d 1162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Serrate v. Serrate 684 So. 2d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
Colvin v. Colvin 671 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
Preis v. Preis 631 So. 2d 1349 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Krampe v. Krampe 625 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Aguilar v. Wilson 613 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Fancett v. Fancett 590 So. 2d 1250
Aguilar v. Wilson 597 So. 2d 1186

Opinion text

607 So.2d 837 (1992) Marilyn S. Wilson AGUILAR v. Stephen M. WILSON. No. 91 CA 2006. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. October 16, 1992. Alan Fishbein, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee Marilyn S. Wilson Aguilar. Jack M. Dampf, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant Stephen M. Wilson. Before EDWARDS, SHORTESS and WHIPPLE, JJ. SHORTESS, Judge. This is an appeal from a judgment of East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court maintaining child support payments of $3,000.00 per month for one minor child. In 1980, Marilyn Smith Aguilar (plaintiff) and Stephen M. Wilson (defendant) stipulated to a divorce judgment wherein plaintiff was awarded custody of their three minor children and defendant agreed to pay "as child support the sum of $3,000.00 per month...." On March 21, 1991, defendant filed a motion to reduce the child support because two of his three children were no longer minors. Plaintiff countered with a motion to increase the child support. After a hearing, the trial court denied both motions, maintaining the child support at $3,000.00 per month. Defendant appealed contending the award for one minor child was excessive. On appeal, this court found it could not properly review the judgment because the trial court failed to give oral or written reasons for deviating from the child support guidelines provided by LSA-R.S. *838 9:315-315.15. Accordingly, the case was remanded to the trial court for the purpose of obtaining its written reasons for the deviation. [1] On remand, the trial court amended its judgment and stated the child support was being maintained for the reasons espoused in plaintiff's original appellate brief. [2] However, after a thorough review of plaintiff's brief, we cannot determine what calculations were made by the trial court to arrive at the $3,000.00 per month figure. As noted in our original opinion, the child support schedule found in R.S. 9:315.14 stops at $10,000.00 per month combined adjusted monthly gross income. Plaintiff's income is approximately $10,800.00 per month, and defendant's income is no less than $32,500.00 per month. The combined adjusted monthly gross income is therefore $43,300.00 per month or over four times the highest income figure in the guideline tables. Plaintiff contends in her brief that since the guideline table's highest combined adjusted monthly income figure provides for support in the amount of $1,059.00 per month, the appropriate amount of support should be four times that figure or $4,236.00 per month. However, even if we were to assume this figure is correct, there is nothing in plaintiff's brief to explain how the court arrived at the $3,000.00-per-month figure. The trial court was instructed on remand to provide this court with its written reasons for the deviation. We specifically stated: Those reasons should include the child's income, if any, included in the court's calculations, the facts the court considered in determining the totality of defendant's financial ability and circumstances, the amount found by the court to constitute the monthly needs and/or wants of the child, and the percentage of that amount attributed to each parent. 597 So.2d at 1188. The trial court, however, simply adopted plaintiff's brief which we find does not address all of the above considerations. Because of this deficiency, it is impossible for us to review the judgment to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, we must again remand this case for the purpose of obtaining its written reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Fancett v. Fancett, 590 So.2d 1250 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991). Since our original remand, R.S. 9:315.1(B) has again been amended by our legislature by La. Acts 1992, No. 123, which certainly is instructive as to the importance the legislature places on the requirement that the court shall give oral or written reasons for deviations. Accordingly, this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and in accordance with law. This court retains jurisdiction to decide the issue on appeal after the trial court has supplied the requested information. The costs of this appeal are to be assessed upon the final determination of this matter. REMANDED. NOTES [1] Our original opinion is cited at 597 So.2d 1186 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992). [2] Because this court retained jurisdiction to decide the issue on appeal, the trial court's amended judgment is of no effect.