Tammy Joyce Humphries Roy v. William Patrick Roy

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

15-1152

TAMMY JOYCE HUMPHRIES ROY

VERSUS

WILLIAM PATRICK ROY

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF GRANT, NO. 17709
HONORABLE WARREN DANIEL WILLETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

DAVID KENT SAVOIE
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Jimmie C. Peters, Marc T. Amy, and David Kent Savoie,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Brian D. Mosley
711 Washington Street
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 484-6100
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
William Patrick Roy

Tammy Joyce Humphries Roy
In Proper Person
117 Watson Road
Colfax, LA 71417
(318) 641-0319

SAVOIE, Judge.

William Patrick Roy (William) appeals the trial court judgment, dismissing,

without prejudice, his rule for reduction of child support payments. For the

following reason, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

William was ordered to pay the sum of $755.00 in child support per month

to the children’s mother, Tammy Joyce Humphries Roy (Tammy), by consent

judgment signed January 23, 2006, for his two minor children, Samantha Joyce

Roy (Samantha) and Samuel Patrick Roy (Samuel). In his rule for reduction of

child support filed August 10, 2015, William alleged that he is entitled to a

reduction based on Samantha reaching majority and having graduated secondary

school. After a hearing on September 8, 2015, judgment was signed October 2,

2015, denying the relief requested.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

The trial court erred in denying William’s rule for reduction of his child

support obligation.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

The standard of review for a reduction of child support case is set forth in

Cole v. Cole, 13-1442, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 6/4/14), 139 So.3d 1225, 1228:

In the absence of manifest error or unless it is clearly wrong, an
appellate court may not set aside a trial court’s findings of fact. Rosell
v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989). The standard of review for child
support awards is well established in this circuit and others. “The trial
court has great discretion in decisions concerning modifications of
child support decrees, and such decisions will not be disturbed on
appeal absent clear abuse of discretion.” Stelly v. Stelly, 02–113
(La.App. 3 Cir. 6/26/02), 820 So.2d 1270.

“An award of child support may be modified if the circumstances of the

child or of either parent materially change and shall be terminated upon proof that

it has become unnecessary.” La.Civ.Code art. 142. Louisiana Revised Statutes

9:311(A)(1) provides: “An award for support shall not be modified unless the

party seeking the modification shows a material change in circumstances of one of

the parties between the time of the previous award and the time of the rule for

modification of the award.”

The burden lies with the party seeking a modification of the child support

obligation to prove a material change has occurred. Cole, 139 So.3d 1225. This

court in Cole, 139 So.3d 1225, 1229, held:

[La.R.S. 9:311] does not otherwise define “material.” The court
in Walker [v. Walker, 02-606 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/4/02), 832 So.2d
1098] references Comment (A) under La.R.S. 9:311. The comment is
not part of the statute, but nevertheless discusses “material” as “a
change in circumstance having real importance or great consequences
for the needs of the child or the ability to pay of either party.”

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.22 sets forth the law regarding termination

of child support upon emancipation or a child reaching majority. It provides in

pertinent part:

A. When there is a child support award in a specific amount per
child, the award for each child shall terminate automatically without
any action by the obligor upon each child’s attaining the age of
majority, or upon emancipation relieving the child of the disabilities
attached to minority.

B. When there is a child support award in globo for two or
more children, the award shall terminate automatically and without
any action by the obligor when the youngest child for whose benefit
the award was made attains the age of majority or is emancipated
relieving the child of the disabilities attached to minority.

“A reduction in child support is not automatic each time one of several

children reaches the age of majority, nor even when all minor children for whom

2

support has been ordered reach the age of majority.” Hester v. Hester,01-380, p. 9

(La.App. 4 Cir. 12/12/01), 804 So.2d 783, 789, writ denied, 02-92 (La. 3/22/02),

811 So.2d 934. “The amount of child support remains the same even after the

oldest child reaches majority until such time as the obligor moves the court for and

is granted a judgment reducing the in globo amount.” Id.

This court, in Henry v. Henry, 07-284 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/30/07), 958 So.2d

150, was faced with the same issue. In that case, the father filed a rule for

reduction of child support based on the child reaching the age of majority. The

hearing officer initially reduced the award; however, the trial court declined the

hearing officer’s interim order, dismissing the rule for reduction. The father

appealed. This court opined:

Although a reduction in the in globo award may have been possible,
Joseph failed to produce the necessary evidence that would have
allowed the trial court to determine the amount of reduction
warranted. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling
dismissing Joseph’s Rule for Reduction of Child Support because of
its inability to modify a child support award or reduce the in globo
award. We hold this is especially true when the trial court lacks the
information necessary to make that determination due to its finding
that Joseph refused to produce the requested documentation.

Id. at 154.

In the present case, the age of the child is uncontested. When asked whether

Samantha has reached the age of eighteen, Tammy agreed that she has. Tammy

also agreed that she has graduated from secondary school and is enrolled at

Louisiana State University at Alexandria. Nonetheless, it is also undisputed that

the 2006 consent judgment setting child support is an in globo award. Thus,

La.R.S. 9:315.22(B) applies, and the child support award terminates upon the

youngest child attaining majority. Samantha is not the youngest child. She has a

3

younger brother, Samuel, who has not yet reached the age of majority. As such,

the award does not terminate automatically.

After a review of the record, we find no manifest error in the trial court’s

findings nor do we find an abuse of discretion in the denial of the rule for

reduction. William has the burden of proving a material change for purposes of the

reduction of his child support payments. He has not done so. William offered the

first page of his 2011, 2012, and 2013 personal tax returns. He also entered into

evidence the Initial Report of R&R Management, L.L.C and the Article of

Incorporation, showing that he and his current wife are the only members of that

company. There were no tax documents related to R&R Management, L.L.C.

admitted into evidence. We agree with the trial court that William has not met his

burden of proof.

CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court,

dismissing, without prejudice, William Patrick Roy’s rule for reduction of child

support payments. Costs of this appeal are assessed to William Patrick Roy.

AFFIRMED.

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

4