Mary Ed McDonald v. Ronald A. McDonald

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 08-1165

MARY ED MCDONALD

VERSUS

RONALD A. MCDONALD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 2007-1150-B
HONORABLE WILLIAM BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, J. David Painter, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Kerry Lyndon Spruill
P.O. Box 105
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-8376
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
Mary Ed McDonald

Keith Wayne Manuel
Attorney At Law
115 East Ogden Street
Marksville, LA 71351-0000
(318) 253-5126
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Ronald A. McDonald

Derrick M. Whittington
Whittington Law Firm
P. O. Box 127
Marksville, LA 71351
(318) 253-5852
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Ronald A. McDonald

GREMILLION, Judge.

The defendant, Ronald McDonald, appeals the judgment of the trial court

holding him in contempt and sentencing him to ninety days in jail. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Ronald McDonald and Mary McDonald, formerly residents of Pearl

River, Mississippi, were divorced in February 2005 after eighteen years of marriage.

Ronald thereafter moved to Plaucheville, Louisiana. In October 2007, Mary filed a

Petition to Make Judgments Executory in Avoyelles Parish concerning judgments for

alimony, past due support, and contempt that were rendered by the Chancery Court

of Pearl River County, Mississippi. Following a hearing in November 2007, the trial

court made executory (1) the Final Judgment of Divorce (which included a property

settlement agreement), (2) An April 6, 2006 judgment (reiterating that Ronald pay

Mary $475 per month from his retirement plan and that Mary relinquish rights to

Ronald’s Louisiana Sheriff’s Pension Fund) and, (3) the Judgment of Contempt filed

on October 18, 2006 (which found Ronald $4,228 in arrearages in alimony owed to

Mary).

Mary then filed a Motion to Examine Judgment Debtor. Ronald filed a

Rule for Contempt of Court or Rescind Property Settlement claiming that Mary had

failed to execute certain documents which would relinquish her claim over his

Louisiana Sherriff’s Pension Fund. Mary then filed a Rule for Contempt of Court.

Following a hearing in March 2008 on both Mary and Ronald’s rules for contempt,

the trial court found Ronald in contempt of court for non-payment of spousal support

in the amount of $3,286.50. It further found with regard to Ronald’s Louisiana

1

Sheriff’s Pension Fund:

Although the evidence presented at hearing failed to reveal to this
Court any legal basis for this claim, the record was held open to allow
Ronald McDonald the opportunity to submit further information to
prove this claim to the Court. The information obtained by Ronald
McDonald subsequent to the hearing actually proved that his Rule for
Contempt of Court is totally and completely without merit. This Court
received correspondence from Andrea Aymond, Attorney for Ronald
McDonald, dated May 8, 2008 with attachments from the Louisiana
Sheriff’s Pension and Relief Fund which confirm that the failure of
Ronald McDonald to receive maximum benefits was through no fault
whatsoever of Mary McDonald. In fact, if there was any fault to be
assessed, that fault would be upon Ronald McDonald.

The trial court further found that Ronald had been fully reimbursed from the Sheriff’s

pension fund and it further recalled his rule for contempt at his costs. The trial court

noted that Ronald had “absolute contempt” for Mary and sentenced him to serve a

period of ninety days in the Avoyelles Parish jail. The trial court held that Ronald

could purge himself of the ninety day sentence by paying Mary $3,286.50 plus

attorney’s fees of $500 and all court costs associated with the rule for contempt.

Ronald filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment, for New Trial and Alternatively for

Exceptions of No Cause of and No Right of Action, which were denied, with

prejudice, by the trial court. Ronald was ordered to begin his ninety day sentence.

Ronald filed a supervisory writ to this court, which was denied because an adequate

remedy was available through appeal. Ronald now appeals. Mary answered the

appeal and seeks damages for frivolous appeal.

ISSUES

Ronald assigns as error:

1. The trial court abused its discretion when it held him in
contempt of court.

2. The trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him
to the maximum sentence allowed pursuant to La.R.S.

2

13:4611.

CONTEMPT OF COURT

Ronald claims that he should not have been held in contempt because the

underlying judgments of divorce, including the property settlement, issued by the

Chancery Court in Mississippi were unlawful under Louisiana law and, therefore,

could not be made executory by a Louisiana court because they were against the

public policy of this state. We disagree. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article

2541states:

A. A party seeking recognition or execution by a Louisiana court
of a judgment or decree of a court of the Untied States or a territory
thereof, or of any other state, or of any foreign country may either seek
enforcement pursuant to R.S. 13:4241, et. seq., or bring an ordinary
proceeding against the judgment debtor in the proper Louisiana court,
to have the judgment or decree recognized and made the judgment of the
Louisiana court.

B. In the latter case, a duly authenticated copy of the judgment or
decree must be annexed to the petition.

Mary complied with the statutory requirements and the Louisiana court

ordered Ronald to pay her $475 per month less what she received from his military

retirement. Ronald’s claim that a Louisiana court must determine whether Mary is

in need and free from fault pursuant to La.Civ.Code arts. 111 and 112 is without

merit. The determination of whether Mary was entitled to the $475 per month award

has already been decided by the Mississippi court. Mary now merely seeks to enforce

the money judgment she has against Ronald. Any issues that Ronald has with the

original Mississippi judgments should have been raised in the court that issued the

judgment.

Ronald urges that Daigle v.Daigle, 06-346 (La.App. 3 Cir. 9/27/06), 94

So.2d 891, writ denied, 06-2914 (La. 2/16/07), 949 So.2d 418 supports his position.

3

We disagree. Daigle is totally inapplicable to the facts at hand. In Daigle, both

parties were Louisiana residents and the property settlement agreement was in

contravention of public policy.

“A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or

interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the

court or respect for its authority.” La.Code Civ.P. art. 221. Constructive contempt

includes “[w]illful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or

process of the court[.]” La.Code Civ.P. art. 224. Louisiana Revised Statute 13:4611

addresses punishment for contempt of court and states that district courts may punish

a person found in contempt:

....

(d) For any other contempt of court, including disobeying an order
for the payment of child support or spousal support . . . by a fine of not
more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment for not more than three
months, or both.

The trial court has vast discretion in determining whether a party is in

contempt of court and its decision will not be reversed absent and abuse of discretion.

See Martin v. Martin, 37, 958 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/10/03), 862 So.2d 1081. Having

reviewed the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding

Ronald in contempt of court for failure to pay Mary $475 per month. It is clear that

Ronald is intent on refusing to pay or delaying the payment rightfully owed Mary

pursuant to the valid Mississippi judgment. It was Ronald’s testimony that he feels

he owes his former wife nothing and that she does not deserve a cent. Consider this

excerpt from the trial transcript:

TRIAL COURT: There are two Judgments in Mississippi that say you
owe her $475.00 out of the military retirement. Whether she gets it all
from you, you know, or gets part from the military retirement and part

4

from you $475.00 has to go to her. Do you understand that?

RONALD: I understand what you are saying yes, sir.

TRIAL COURT: And that is the Judgment of the court that says that.
Two Judgments of the court that say that and you understand that but
you still don’t intend on paying her.

RONALD: No, sir.

Furthermore, it is clear from reading the letter sent by Ronald’s own attorney to the

trial court dated May 8, 2008, that Mary is not wrongfully receiving monies from his

Louisiana Sheriff’s Pension Fund nor did she fail to take any required action.

Ronald’s actions indicate the willful contempt he has for the court’s orders.

Accordingly, we find that the ninety day jail sentence was not excessive. These

assignments of error are without merit.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Mary urges that we award her damages for frivolous appeal.

La.Code Civ.P. art. 2164 provides that an appellate court may
award damages for frivolous appeal. However, damages for frivolous
appeal will not be awarded unless it appears that the appeal was taken
solely for the purpose of delay, that serious legal questions are not
raised, or that the attorney does not seriously believe in the position he
advocates. Robinson v. Thornton, 96-1329 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97);
705 So.2d 745, writ denied, 97-2963 (La.2/6/98); 709 So.2d 739.

Cooks v. Rodenback, 97-1389, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/29/98), 711 So.2d

444, 449. Considering the facts before us, we find that Ronald has pursued this

appeal merely for the purposes of delaying payment to Mary. Accordingly, we award

her $1425 in attorney’s fees for work performed on appeal, an amount equal to three

months of the support Ronald has contemporaneously refused to pay her.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court finding the defendant-appellant, Ronald

5

McDonald in contempt of court and sentencing him to ninety days in jail is affirmed.

Ronald is hereby ordered to pay Mary $1000 in attorney’s fees for work performed

on appeal and $1425 in damages.

AFFIRMED.

6