State of Louisiana v. Kendrick Alexander

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-615

STATE OF LOUISIANA

VERSUS

KENDRICK ALEXANDER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 01-N-686
HONORABLE JAMES RAY MCCLELLAND, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and Shannon J.
Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Nicole Burke
Assistant District Attorney, Sixteenth Judicial District Court
300 Iberia Street Room 200
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 369-4434
COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE:
State of Louisiana

La’Derical Wagner
Attorney at Law
400 Willow Street
Franklin, LA 70538
(337) 828-2788
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Kendrick Alexander

GREMILLION, Judge.

The defendant, Kendrick Alexander, appeals the trial court’s judgment

obligating him to pay $461.00 per month in child support. For the following

reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September 2001, the State of Louisiana brought an action for criminal

neglect of family, in violation of La.R.S. 14:74, for Alexander’s failure to pay

child support for his minor child in necessitous circumstances. In August 2013, the

State filed a motion to modify the previous order, seeking to calculate and add

child support to the existing medical support. In November 2013, the hearing

officer’s joint obligation worksheet indicated a child support obligation owed by

Alexander of $461.00 with payments to begin in December 2013. 1 Alexander

appealed the hearing officer’s recommendation. Following a February 2014

hearing, the trial court “accepted, approved and confirmed” the hearing officer’s

recommendation of $461.00 per month. Alexander now appeals and argues that

the trial court “erred in allowing the Labor Guide to be used to determine [his]

income without regard to self-employed expenses or his tax returns warranting a de

novo review of his child support obligation.”

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315 et seq. set forth the child support

guidelines. The trial court is granted great deference in fixing a child support

award, and its determination of a parent’s gross monthly income and his/her

credibility is subject to a manifest error review. Hagan v. Hagan, 10-1432

1
We note that the original worksheet indicated an award of $461.06; however, subsequent
paperwork refers to the payment of $461.00, which is the figure we will use.

(La.App. 3 Cir. 7/27/11), 70 So.3d 1081; State, Dep’t of Soc. Servs. v. Swords, 08-

580 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 1267. The trial court has broad discretion

in determining which figures are appropriate to use when calculating a parent’s

monthly gross income. Hagan, 70 So.3d 1081.

Gross income is defined in La.R.S. 9:315 (C)(3) as:

(a) The income from any source, including but not limited to salaries,
wages, commissions, bonuses, dividends, severance pay, pensions,
interest, trust income, recurring monetary gifts, annuities, capital
gains, social security benefits, workers’ compensation benefits,
basic and variable allowances for housing and subsistence from
military pay and benefits, unemployment insurance benefits,
disaster unemployment assistance received from the United States
Department of labor, disability insurance benefits, and spousal
support received from a preexisting spousal support obligation;

(b) Expense reimbursement or in-kind payments received by a parent
in the course of employment, self-employment, or operation of a
business, if the reimbursements or payments are significant and
reduce the parent’s personal living expenses. Such payment
include but are not limited to a company care, free housing, or
reimbursed meals; and

(c) Gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses required to
produce income, for purposes of income from self-employment,
rent, royalties, proprietorship of a business, or joint ownership or
partnership or closely held corporation. “ordinary and necessary
expenses” shall not include amounts allowable by the Internal
Revenue Service for the accelerated component of depreciation
expenses of investment tax credits or any other business expenses
determined by the court to be inappropriate for determining gross
income for purposes of calculating child support.

Louisiana Revised Statute 9:315.1.1(3) pertains to evidence allowed to

support the determination of income and allows for “[t]he standard of living and

assets of the obligor both prior and subsequent to the establishment of a child

support order, to establish the actual income if the amount claimed is inconsistent

with his lifestyle.”

2

The State set Alexander’s monthly income at $3,077.00 based on the

Department of Labor Guide for mechanic, paint, and body work. Alexander, who

was forty years old at the time of the hearing, testified that he is self-employed and

owns Silverback Auto Body, a paint and body shop located in Baton Rouge,

Louisiana. He said that he operates only one garage stall and only does painting.

Although Alexander plans to become certified in body work, he stated that he

currently subs out any dent repairs, collision repairs, and framework. Alexander

reviewed tax returns for his business beginning in 2011, in which he reported an

adjusted gross income of -$2,790.00. In 2012, he claimed an adjusted gross

income of $9,980.00. For the year 2013, he claimed an adjusted gross income of

$13,790.00. Alexander further stated that he has a dealership license and plans to

purchase cars at auction and resell them for a fee.

On cross-examination, Alexander claimed to not have a car of his own, but

he did have access to a Bentley via his girlfriend, La’Derical Wagner. When

questioned if he drives a Mercedes with a dealer’s license plate, Alexander said

that he had a Mercedes, but it was for his friend. Alexander further testified that he

has five children. He said that he gives the four children who were not subject to

this proceeding money and “whatever they need, whenever they need it.”

Alexander went on to testify regarding his various felony convictions and stated

that he used to play poker and bet pretty high, but he quit.

Monica Francois, the mother of the child for whom the support order was

issued, testified that she believed Alexander was hiding money from the State. She

said that Alexander has picked up their daughter in a Masarati and a Mercedes.

Francois said that the Mercedes is registered under his sister’s name, but it belongs

to Alexander. She further testified that he has a Bentley. She said that Alexander

3

has taken their daughter on trips every year to places such as Disney World, Las

Vegas, and California. She further stated that Alexander bought their daughter

expensive shoes, purses, watches, and belts. She said that he owns a condominium

in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

Francois testified regarding various photos submitted into evidence showing

him pumping gas into the Bentley, his Mercedes S550 with a dealer plate, and their

daughter in a Limo provided by Alexander. The identical dealer plates were noted

on the Mercedes and Bentley.

The State testified that it used a compilation from the Louisiana

Occupational Employment and Wages from the Louisiana Workforce Commission

for 2012. The State arrived at a figure of $35,000 as an average yearly wage for

automotive body and related repairs and automotive service technicians and

mechanics.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court noted that it did not find

Alexander’s testimony to be believable and that his actual income could not be

established by his tax returns. The trial court stated, pertaining to his 2012 tax

return in particular:

I don’t believe that anybody that has a taxable income of
$230.00 is driving any Bentley’s [sic] or Mercedes, or Maserati’s [sic]
or anything of that nature.

I find the defendant’s testimony to not be believable in this case,
and I believe that his actual income cannot be established by his tax
returns, and I believe that the method used by the State is appropriate
in this matter.

4

Based on our review of the record, we find no manifest error in the trial

court’s finding. Alexander’s lifestyle is simply inconsistent with his claimed

income. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court affirming the hearing

officer’s child support award of $461.00 per month is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

5