Lorraine Lanclos Wagley v. Arthur C. Wagley

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-218

LORRAINE LANCLOS WAGLEY

VERSUS

ARTHUR C. WAGLEY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 08-C-1963-D
HONORABLE DONALD W. HEBERT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Jimmie C. Peters, and Billy Howard Ezell,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

David L. Carriere
Attorney at Law
322 South Market Street
Opelousas, LA 70570
(337) 948-6217
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Arthur C. Wagley

Elizabeth A. Long
Attorney at Law
600 Jefferson Street, Suite 504
Lafayette, LA 70501
(337) 266-2180
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE:
Lorraine Lanclos Wagley

DECUIR, Judge.

Lorraine Lanclos Wagley sought an increase in child support payments from

her former husband, Arthur C. Wagley, based upon her change in employment and

subsequent reduction in income. In response, Arthur Wagley alleged a similar

reduction in income and sought a decrease in his support obligation. The trial

court found Lorraine was voluntarily underemployed; thus, her monthly income

was considered to be the same amount set forth in the court’s previous ruling

establishing the child support award. The trial court further found Arthur did

prove a decrease in his monthly income. However, when the court recalculated the

support award based upon the statutory child support guidelines, Arthur’s monthly

obligation was increased from $1,500.00 to $2,065.00. Arthur appeals.

At the time of their divorce, Lorraine and Arthur had four children, two of

whom were minors. By judgment dated April 16, 2010, child support was set at

$3,000.00 per month, which was to be reduced to $1,500.00 per month starting

June 1, 2010, after the high school graduation and eighteenth birthday of one of the

two minor children. Later that year, Lorraine accepted a job with the St. Landry

Parish School System at a salary significantly less than she was making in her

previous position. Arthur also asserted that he, too, makes significantly less in

income than he did at the time child support was originally set. Arthur owns and

manages a variety of businesses that include such activities as real estate

investment, specialized healthcare real estate management, farming, and horse

breeding. Using vague and complicated explanations, Arthur attempted to prove

that his monthly income decreased from $24,583.00 to $9,000.00 since the original

child support award was made.

The trial court found Lorraine left her higher paying job of her own volition

and was voluntarily underemployed. That finding has not been appealed. The trial

court also found that Arthur had indeed suffered a decrease in income. After

adding up various payments, benefits, and expense reimbursements which Arthur

described to the court, his monthly income was calculated at $18,311.00. Based on

this change in circumstances, the trial court turned to the child support guidelines,

La.R.S. 9:315 et seq., to determine the appropriate amount to be awarded for the

support of one minor child. Arthur’s share of the support obligation was calculated

to be $2,065.00 per month, which was delineated as $1,694.00 in support and 81%

of the child’s private school tuition of $458.00.

In this appeal, Arthur contends the trial court erred in finding a material

change in circumstances and in calculating his income. We disagree. We find the

record supports the conclusions reached by the trial court.

First, Arthur himself alleged a change in circumstances by testifying to a

lower monthly income and various business deals that had failed or had not yet

become income producing. He suggested that his income was less than half the

amount established in April of 2010. He offered certain bank records that showed

he did not always receive the income specified in his employment contract and

actually had put money back into the company on some occasions. Although

Arthur does have partners in some of his endeavors, it appears from the record that

he has the authority to decide when and how much he is paid. Second, Arthur

described certain benefits he receives as a result of his business dealings. He uses

a company-owned house in Lafayette, has access to several vehicles, receives

reimbursement for some travel and gas expenses, and was provided with health

insurance for his family. Based on this testimony, the trial court found Arthur’s

income had decreased by over $6,000.00 per month, which was not the amount

Arthur sought to prove, but was nonetheless a material change in circumstances as

described in La.R.S. 9:311.

2

Under the child support schedule set forth at La.R.S. 9:315.19 and effective

in 2010 when the original child support award was made, Arthur was responsible

for $3,003.00 per month for two children and $2,131.00 for one child. Therefore,

when the Wagley’s 18-year-old daughter graduated from high school, Arthur’s

obligation should have been reduced to $2,131.00, not $1,500.00 as specified in the

April 16, 2010 judgment. The judgment was not contested, however, and the

award stood. Nevertheless, when a recalculation is warranted, as shown in the

record before us, the recalculation must comply with the statutory schedule.

Accordingly, once the threshold requirement of a material change in

circumstances was proven, the trial court correctly relied on the child support

guidelines for recalculation of the support award. The trial court was not

constrained by the terms of the April 2010 judgment, which provided for the

$3,000.00 in globo award to be reduced by half upon the older child’s reaching the

age of majority. Rather, the court was compelled to follow the guidelines in

modifying Arthur’s child support obligation. La.R.S. 9:315.1. The “logical

inconsistency” of Arthur’s obligation being increased after he proved a decrease in

income is immaterial; his obligation was originally lower than what the guidelines

specified. Now, the support obligation has been calculated according to law, and

we find no error in this determination.

For the above and foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is

affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Arthur C. Wagley.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of
Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

3