Mary Lorraine Munnerlyn v. Kenneth W. Munnerlyn

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-739

MARY LORRAINE MUNNERLYN

VERSUS

KENNETH W. MUNNERLYN

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 125394
HONORABLE ANTHONY THIBODEAUX, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

MARC T. AMY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Jimmie C. Peters, and Marc T. Amy, Judges.

JUDGMENT REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART AND
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED; REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.

Leon J. Minvielle, III
Haik, Minvielle & Grubbs
Post Office Box 11040
New Iberia, LA 70562-1040
(337) 365-5486
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Kenneth W. Munnerlyn

James W. Schwing, Sr.
411 Iberia Street
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 365-2445
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT:
Mary Lorraine Munnerlyn

AMY, Judge.

The plaintiff filed suit, seeking to enforce a provision in her Texas divorce

decree requiring the defendant to pay her health insurance expenses. After a

hearing, the trial court ordered that the defendant reimburse the plaintiff for

previously paid health insurance premiums, but, finding that the plaintiff had not

met her burden of proof, dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for ongoing health

insurance premiums. This appeal follows. For the following reasons, we reverse

in part; amend in part and affirm as amended; and remand for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Mary Lorraine Munnerlyn, was formerly married to the

defendant, Kenneth Wayne Munnerlyn, Jr. The parties sought a divorce in the

Texas district court. In March of 2009, the parties entered into an agreed final

decree of divorce, which was signed by the Texas district court judge. In part, the

agreed divorce decree provided that:

The parties hereby agree that Kenneth Wayne Munnerlyn,
Jr., shall provide Mary Lorraine Munnerlyn with health insurance
coverage that provides basic health-care services, including usual
physician services, office visits, hospitalization, and laboratory, X-ray,
and emergency services, that may be provided through a health
maintenance organization or other private or public organization, at
his sole cost and expense.

In November of 2014, Lorraine filed a petition to make the foreign judgment

executory concerning the divorce decree, and that petition was granted.

Thereafter, she filed a motion to enforce the divorce decree, alleging that Kenneth

did not pay her insurance premiums as required and, as of May 4, 2014, owed her

$35,748.47. Lorraine also requested an order requiring Kenneth to continue to pay

her health insurance premiums, in the amounts of $750.00 for December 2014 and

$898.37 starting on January 1, 2015.

At a hearing on that issue, the parties stipulated that, as of May 4, 2014,

Lorraine paid $35,748.47 in insurance premiums and that Kenneth reimbursed her

$11,980.20. Lorraine also testified that she obtained a new insurance policy with a

monthly premium of $750.60 for December 2014 and $898.37 thereafter. Kenneth

testified that Lorraine never consulted him about the cost of the insurance policies

she obtained and refused to provide him with any information about the specifics

or costs of her policies. He also testified that he had found several comparable

insurance policies with, at least preliminarily, substantially lower premiums.

The trial court entered judgment in favor of Lorraine for the unreimbursed

portion of her previously-incurred health insurance premiums in the amount of

$23,768.27. However, finding that the provision concerning health insurance

premiums was interim periodic spousal support, the trial court considered the issue

of whether Kenneth would be required to continue to pay Lorraine’s health

insurance premiums de novo. The trial court determined that Lorraine had not

presented any information concerning her need for spousal support and whether

Kenneth was able to pay. Accordingly, the trial court found that Lorraine had not

met her burden of proof with regard to the issue of ongoing payment of Lorraine’s

health insurance premiums and denied her request.

Lorraine appeals, asserting that the trial court erred in failing to award legal

interest on the judgment from the date of judicial demand; in not recognizing and

enforcing the Texas divorce decree; in finding that the Texas divorce decree

provided for interim periodic spousal support; and in denying her request for

ongoing payment of her health insurance premiums.

2

Discussion

Full Faith and Credit

As Lorraine noted in her pre-trial memorandum, this proceeding addresses

two issues: 1) Lorraine’s claim for reimbursement for previously-paid health

insurance pursuant to the Texas divorce decree and 2) Lorraine’s claim for ongoing

payment of her health insurance premiums starting December 1, 2014. Lorraine

contends that the trial court erred in failing to recognize and enforce the Texas

divorce decree; in determining that the Texas divorce decree awarded interim

periodic spousal support; and in denying her request for ongoing payment of her

health insurance premiums.

It is well-settled that Louisiana is required to give full faith and credit to the

judgments of the courts of its sister states. U.S. Const. art. 4, § 1; Johnson v.

Williams, 49,749 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/15/15), 163 So.3d 880. Thus, a foreign

judgment is entitled to at least the res judicata effect to which it would be entitled

in the state that rendered the judgment. Nolan v. Fifteenth Judicial Dist. Attorney’s

Office, 10-1093 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/6/11), 62 So.3d 805 (quoting Durfee v. Duke,

375 U.S. 106, 84 S.Ct. 242 (1963)), writ denied, 11-1350 (La. 9/2/11), 68 So.3d

520. However, a foreign judgment may not be entitled to full faith and credit

where the rendering forum lacked jurisdiction or where a collateral attack on the

judgment would have been permitted in the state that rendered the judgment.

Johnson, 163 So.3d 880. In both cases, the burden lies on the litigant seeking to

deny full faith and credit to the foreign judgment. Id.

Our review of the record reveals nothing indicating that the parties contested

the jurisdiction of the Texas court or suggesting that the Texas divorce decree was

subject to collateral attack. Thus, we find that the Texas divorce decree was

3

entitled to full faith and credit. With regard to claims for previously-incurred

health insurance premiums, we note that the parties stipulated as to the amounts

incurred by Lorraine and the reimbursements previously paid by Kenneth. Further,

given the res judicata effect of the Texas divorce decree, we find no error in the

trial court’s award for those previously-incurred health insurance premiums.

Request for Payment of Ongoing Health Insurance Premiums

With regard to Lorraine’s claims for payment of her ongoing health

insurance premiums, the trial court’s reasons for judgment indicate that the trial

court determined that because the Texas divorce decree contained no indication of

whether the payments were intended to be permanent or when they were to

terminate, that ongoing payment of Lorraine’s monthly premiums was interim

periodic spousal support. Thus, the trial court considered the issue de novo and

ultimately found that, because Lorraine did not prove that she was entitled to final

periodic support, she was not entitled to any further payments for health insurance

premiums from Kenneth.

As previously discussed, the Texas divorce decree is entitled to full faith and

credit in our Louisiana courts, and is considered res judicata to the extent that it

would be afforded such in Texas, the rendering state. Nolan, 62 So.3d 805.

Further, the burden of proving that the Texas divorce decree is not entitled to full

faith and credit lay on Kenneth, the party contesting his obligations under the

decree. Johnson, 163 So.3d 880. 1 Kenneth contested his obligation to make

ongoing payments for the health insurance premiums pursuant to the Texas divorce

decree. However, Kenneth’s arguments were essentially that a) the divorce decree

1
We also note that a panel of this court has previously found that, although La.Civ.Code
art. 112 permits an award of final periodic support to have a specified duration, it does not
require it. Harmon v. Harmon, 12-580 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/7/12), 101 So.3d 1122.

4

did not reflect the actual agreement between the parties with regard to the

termination of his obligations and b) that the amounts requested were unreasonable

because Lorraine failed to communicate with him about her insurance and did not

investigate whether she could get comparable insurance for a lower price. We

conclude that these arguments are insufficient to defeat the res judicata effect of

the Texas divorce decree.

Given the res judicata effect of the Texas divorce decree, we also conclude

that the trial court erred in modifying the Texas divorce decree when such a

modification was not sought by either party. As discussed in Domingue v. Bodin,

08-62, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 654, 657:

Pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 191 “[a] court possesses
inherently all of the power necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction
even though not granted expressly by law.” From that grant of power,
trial courts are vested with authority, under La.Code Civ.P. art. 862 to
grant relief to the party in whose favor the final judgment rendered
was entitled, even if the party has not demanded such a relief in his
pleadings and the latter contain no prayer for general and equitable
relief. Accordingly, “under proper circumstances proof beyond the
pleadings, even if objected to, may be admitted and considered when
permission to amend the pleadings is requested and granted.”
La.C.C.P. Art. 1154. (emphasis supplied). Ussery v. Ussery, 583
So.2d 838, 841 (La.App. 2 Cir.1991) (citing Guillory v. Buller, 398
So.2d 43 (La.App. 3 Cir.1981)). However, notwithstanding this
authority, “nothing in the article [art. 862] is intended to confer
jurisdiction on a court to decide a controversy which the parties have
not regularly brought before it.” Id. Otherwise, “[a] judgment beyond
the pleadings is a nullity.” Id. at 841, citing Romero v. State Farm
Fire & Casualty Co., 479 So.2d 694 (La.App. 3 Cir.1985).

Additionally, due process considerations require adequate notice to the parties that

the matter will be adjudicated. Sylvester v. Fontenot, 10-1115 (La.App. 3 Cir.

3/9/11), 58 So.3d 675.

Our review of the record reveals nothing suggesting that either party sought

modification of the Texas divorce decree to reduce or terminate Kenneth’s

5

obligation to pay Lorraine’s health insurance premiums. See La.Civ.Code art. 114;

Norvell v. Norvell, 94-01 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/95), 649 So.2d 95, writs denied, 95-

681, 95-683 (La. 5/5/95), 654 So.2d 325. As Lorraine noted in her pre-trial

memorandum, she sought resolution of two issues: 1) reimbursement for

previously-paid health insurance pursuant to the Texas divorce decree and 2)

ongoing payment of her health insurance premiums starting December 1, 2014. As

previously mentioned, Kenneth’s arguments concerning the Texas divorce decree

concerned whether the divorce decree adequately reflected the actual agreement

between the parties and whether the amounts requested by Lorraine were

reasonable. Thus, the trial court erred when it went beyond the scope of the

pleadings and required Lorraine to prove de novo her entitlement to ongoing

payment of her health insurance premiums. This was clearly “a controversy the

parties have not regularly brought before it.” Domingue, 996 So.2d at 657

(quoting Ussery v. Ussery, 583 So.2d 838 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1991)).

Accordingly, we find that the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce rendered in

Montgomery County, Texas on May 19, 2009, and made executory by judgment

signed November 19, 2014, in Iberia Parish, Louisiana is entitled to full faith and

credit and reverse the trial court’s judgment denying Lorraine’s request for

payment of her ongoing health insurance premiums. Further, we remand this

matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Interest Award

Lorraine also asserts that the trial court erred in failing to award legal

interest from the date of judicial demand. Our review of the record indicates that

Lorraine requested judicial interest in her petition to make foreign judgment

executory, as well as in her affidavit attached to her motion to enforce divorce

6

decree. Kenneth contends that the parties’ stipulation at the hearing precludes an

award of interest.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1921 states “[t]he court shall

award interest in the judgment as prayed for or as provided by law.” Our review of

the transcript of the hearing indicates that the parties’ stipulations are only as to the

amount paid by Lorraine for health insurance premiums and the amount Kenneth

has reimbursed Lorraine for those premiums. Further, under the facts of this case,

we conclude that the demand in Lorraine’s affidavit is sufficient to constitute a

prayer for interest. Accordingly, we amend the judgment to reflect that the award

for Lorraine’s previously-incurred health insurance premiums includes legal

interest from the date of judicial demand.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the Agreed Final Decree of Divorce

rendered in Montgomery County, Texas on May 19, 2009, and made executory by

judgment signed November 19, 2014, in Iberia Parish, Louisiana is entitled to full

faith and credit and reverse the trial court’s judgment denying Mary Lorraine

Munnerlyn’s request for payment of her ongoing health insurance premiums. We

remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

Further, we amend the trial court’s judgment dated April 8, 2015, to reflect

that the $23,768.27 award to Ms. Munnerlyn for previously-incurred health

insurance premiums includes legal interest from November 25, 2014, the date of

7

judicial demand, and affirm that part of the judgment as amended. Costs of this

proceeding are assessed to Kenneth Wayne Munnerlyn, Jr.

JUDGMENT REVERSED IN PART; AMENDED IN PART AND
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED; REMANDED FOR FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS.

8