Lindley Scott Holleman v. Natalie Louise Barrilleaux

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

20-195

LINDLEY SCOTT HOLLEMAN

VERSUS

NATALIE LOUISE BARRILLEAUX

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 122476
HONORABLE VINCENT J. BORNE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JONATHAN W. PERRY
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Chief Judge, Jonathan W. Perry and Charles G.
Fitzgerald, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Edward Paul Landry
Landry, Watkins, Repaske & Breaux
Post Office Box 12040
New Iberia, Louisiana 70562-2040
(337) 364-7626
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
LINDLEY SCOTT HOLLEMAN

Jack D. Miller
Nicole B. Breaux
415 N. Parkerson Avenue
Crowley, Louisiana 70526
(337) 788-0768
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATALIE LOUISE BARRILLEAUX

PERRY, Judge.

Lindley Scott Holleman (“Holleman”) appeals the trial court’s denial of his

motion for reduction of child support for failure to prove a material change in

circumstances. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Holleman and Natalie Louise Barrilleaux (“Barrilleaux”) are the parents of a

minor daughter, R.G.B., who was born on July 3, 2012. On September 11, 2013, the

trial court heard evidence of the monthly incomes of the parents and set Holleman’s

child support obligation at $1,922.95. After Barrilleaux appealed that judgment, this

court raised Holleman’s monthly child support to $4,161.31 per month to reflect

Holleman’s interests in undistributed profits in Hollemire International, LLC

(“Hollemire International”), a limited liability company in which he held a fifty

percent interest. Holleman v. Barrilleaux, 14-499 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/19/14), 161

So.3d 789.

On June 27, 2018, Holleman filed yet another rule to show cause1 why his

monthly child support obligation should not be reduced. 2 As his basis for the

1
Since this court’s ruling in 2014 which raised Holleman’s monthly child support
obligation, Holleman has filed two motions seeking a reduction in his monthly child support
obligation. The most recent trial court judgment was appealed and is currently before this court.
See Holleman v. Barrilleaux, No. 20-194. That case was argued at the same time as this matter
and a separate opinion will be issued in both.
2
After referencing the monthly child support payment established in this court’s 2014
judgment, Holleman states, “[t]here has been a change in circumstances between the time of the
previous judgment and the time this motion for decrease was filed[.]” It is well established in
La.R.S. 9:311(A)(1) that if a party seeks a modification in an award of child support, it must be
shown that a material change in circumstances has occurred between the time of the previous award
and the time of the rule for modification. Just prior to filing this motion to reduce child support,
Holleman had filed a like motion in 2017 that resulted in a 2018 judgment adverse to Holleman.
As noted above, that 2018 judgment is now before us. In the present case, we find it
inconsequential that Holleman has used our 2014 judgment as the benchmark rather than the 2018
judgment; in either case the base amount sought to be modified stayed the same as were the
questions about whether Holleman carried his burden of proving his gross income. Moreover,
because that 2018 judgment and the transcript are now before us, we have taken judicial notice of
the transcript of this other appeal. See La.Code Evid. art. 202(C); see also 727 Toulouse, L.L.C.
v. Bistro at the Maison De Ville, L.L.C., 12-1014 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/21/13), 122 So.3d 1152, writ
denied, 13-2414 (La. 1/10/14), 130 So.3d 327 (holding that a court may take judicial notice where

reduction, Holleman alleged a change in income as well as a serious downturn in the

oilfield industry3 that seriously affected his income.

On September 12, 2018, the trial court heard the testimony of the parents,

Holleman and Barrilleaux, and took the matter under advisement. Thereafter on

May 28, 2019, the trial rendered a judgment with written reasons, denying

Holleman’s motion for reduction of child support.

On July 17, 2019, Holleman filed a motion for appeal. Holleman assigns as

error that: (1) the trial court incorrectly denied his motion for a reduction in his child

support payments by failing to consider his actual gross income; and (2) the trial

court incorrectly relied on information other than his actual income to deny his

request for a decrease in his child support.

DISCUSSION

Holleman contends the trial court manifestly erred when it found he failed to

prove his employment circumstances materially changed sufficient to decrease his

monthly child support obligation. He argues that it was unrefuted that he no longer

had a financial interest in Hollemire International or any other business entity, that

his only income was with Cardinal Coil Tubing, LLC (“Coil Tubing”), and that his

child support obligation should have been lowered to $915.20, the amount found by

the hearing officer.

Barrilleaux contends the trial court had to make credibility determinations

about Holleman’s gross monthly income, and its assessment was not manifestly

erroneous. She further argues that Holleman failed to provide documentation and

the adjudicative facts in the prior case are within the general and specific knowledge of the court
and the attached transcript of the hearing and ruling in that case cannot reasonably be questioned
as accurate).
3
Even though this allegation was made and was generally stated in Holleman’s trial
testimony, proof of this unadjudicated factual assertion was never offered.
2

proof as required in La.R.S. 9:315.2 regarding his contention that he no longer had

an ownership interest in Hollemire International or any other business entity.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 224 recognizes that “[p]arents are obligated to

support, maintain, and educate their child.” Likewise, La.Civ.Code art. 142 provides

that “[a]n award of child support may be modified if the circumstances of the child

or of either parent materially change[.]” The applicable burden of proof is governed

by La.R.S. 9:311(A)(1), which provides that

[a]n 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 material change in
circumstances must be substantial and continuing since the last award
for support.

The moving party must show either a change in the obligee’s needs or the obligor’s

ability to pay. Williams v. Poore, 10–1087 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/12/11), 55 So.3d 953.

“Louisiana’s uniform child support guidelines were enacted to provide

‘adequacy and consistency in child support awards.’” Lea v. Sanders, 04-762, 04-

1122, p. 6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/22/04), 890 So.2d 764, quoting Guillot v. Munn, 99-

3132, p. 9 (La. 3/24/00), 756 So.2d 290, 297, writ denied, 05-183 (La. 3/24/05), 896

So.2d 1046. 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 manifest error review. Hagan v. Hagan, 10-1432 (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.

In support of his motion for a reduction of his monthly child support

obligation, Holleman denied having any current income from several former

business entities which had been identified in his past child support hearings, namely:

Hollemire International, the James and Kelly Holleman Family Trust, LLC (“Family

3

Trust”), and Private Workforce Solutions, LLC. Instead, Holleman testified that his

only income was his employment with Coil Tubing. A letter dated March 2, 2018,

from Coil Tubing was entered into evidence. The letter stated:

Mr. Lindley Holleman is being hired as an Equipment Operator and his
date of hire will be 03/05/18. As an Equipment Operator his hourly pay
rate will be $15.00. The average hours worked are 60 hrs., which would
be 40 hours paid as straight and 20 hours paid at time and a half pay
rate. Equipment Operators are only guaranteed 20 hours pay per week
when not working.

In addition, Holleman introduced his bank statements from Community First

Bank for March 20, 2018 and May 20, 2018 through August 20, 2018. Each of those

bank statements show that more money was withdrawn than was deposited.4

Finally, Holleman presented his 2017 tax returns. That evidence was entered

with the joint stipulation that “they were based solely on information provided by

Lindley Holleman.” Although there was no expert testimony regarding these returns,

several line items bear notation: adjusted gross income is shown as $24,769.00; and

itemized deductions are totaled as $40,003.00 (consisting, in part, of: $23,382.00 for

income taxes and real estate taxes; $13,706.00 for investment interest; and $2,915.00

for investment expenses).

Against that factual backdrop, we call to mind the onerous task before a trial

court in its determination of child support and the burden of proof required of the

mover in seeking a reduction of that child support obligation by having to show a

material change of circumstances. Whether we consider our judgment of 2014,

which initially set Holleman’s child support, or Holleman’s two subsequent failed

4
The record shows deposits and withdrawals/overdrafts as follows: between February 21
and March 20, 2018: deposits of $6,852.52 and withdrawals/overdrafts of $7,392.08; between
April 23 and May 20, 2018: deposits of $3,303.66 and withdrawals/overdrafts of $4,808.77;
between May 21 and June 20, 2018: deposits of $1,401.99 and withdrawals/overdrafts of
$3,427.91; between June 21 and July 22, 2018: deposits of $6,226.97 and withdrawals/overdrafts
of $6,771.02; and between July 23, 2018 and August 20, 2018: deposits of $6,429.38 and
withdrawals/overdrafts of $7,313.07.
4

attempts to reduce that obligation, decisions that left in place our earlier award, it

was Holleman’s burden to prove his entitlement to a child support reduction.

In Stogner v. Stogner, 98-3044, pp. 5-6 (La. 7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762, 766–67,

our supreme court stated:

The obligation to support their children is conjoint upon the parents and
each must contribute in proportion to his or her resources. Hogan v.
Hogan, 549 So.2d 267 (La.1989). As a complement to that obligation,
La.R.S. 9:315–315.15 provides a detailed set of guidelines that the
courts are mandated to follow in setting the amount of child support in
“any proceeding to establish or modify child support filed on or after
October 1, 1989.” La.R.S. 9:315.1(A); Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 626
So.2d 578 (La.App. 3 Cir.1993). These child support guidelines were
enacted in 1989 for a twofold purpose: to address the inconsistency in
the amounts of child support awards and as an appropriate solution to
the inadequacy of the amounts of these awards. Nations, Louisiana’s
Child Support Guideline: A Preliminary Analysis, 50 La.L.R. 1057,
1058 (1990); see also The Family Support Act of 1988, Pub.L. 100–
485, 102 Stat. 2343 (1988). Under this system of guidelines, the
Legislature adopted an income shares approach which combines the
adjusted monthly gross income of both parties in arriving at the amount
of support owed. BLAKESLY, LOUISIANA FAMILY LAW, §
16.09.1 at 16–19 (Michie 1996). . . . Moreover, the parental obligation
to pay child support must be implemented within the body of law
contained in the Louisiana Child Support Guidelines. La.Civ.Code arts.
227–231; La.R.S. 9:315, et seq.; State in Interest of Travers, 28,022
(La.App. 2 Cir.12/6/95), 665 So.2d 625; BLAKESLY, LOUISIANA
FAMILY LAW, § 16.09.1 at 16–19 (Michie 1996). As such, the
guidelines are intended to fairly apportion between the parents the
mutual financial obligation they owe their children, in an efficient,
consistent, and adequate manner. State in Interest of Travers, 665
So.2d 625.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.2(A) addresses the appropriate

documentation for determining a child support obligation and provides, in pertinent

part:

Each party shall provide to the court a verified income statement
showing gross income and adjusted gross income, together with
documentation of current and past earnings. . . . Suitable documentation
of current earnings shall include but not be limited to pay stubs or
employer statements. The documentation shall include a copy of the
party’s most recent federal tax return. A copy of the statement and
documentation shall be provided to the other party. When an obligor
has an ownership interest in a business, suitable documentation shall
include but is not limited to the last three personal and business state
5

and federal income tax returns, including all attachments and all
schedules, specifically Schedule K-1 and W-2 forms, 1099 forms, and
amendments, the most recent profit and loss statements, balance sheets,
financial statements, quarterly sales tax reports, personal and business
bank account statements, receipts, and expenses. A copy of all
statements and documentation shall be provided to the other party.

In the present case, the designated record now before us fails to show

Holleman presented a verified income statement. Instead, he relied upon his 2017

tax return and his current employment with Coil Tubing. Commenting on this in its

written reasons for judgment, the trial court stated:

Mr. Holleman alleges that he is no longer employed or had any
ownership interest in a company known as Hollemire, LLC, instead,
employed as a coil tubing hand for Cardinal Coil Tubing, LLC making
$15.00 an hour. According to the Hearing Officer Conference Report[,]
it was determined that Holleman had a monthly income of $2,600.[5] It
was later stipulated between the parties that Holleman’s monthly
income with benefits from his employer, Cardinal Coil Tubing, LLC
totaled $3,174.74. There was no stipulation that this was Holleman’s
only income.

....

At the hearing of this matter, Mr. Holleman repeatedly testified
that he has no other source of income. However, he did testify that his
parents will help him out if he needs help with bills, and when
confronted with certain transactions on his bank statement, specifically
a $10,000 deposit on February 26, 2018, of which $4,000 was taken in
cash, admitted that his parents sometimes give him money when he is
“in a bind.” Further Mr. Holleman testified that he borrowed money
from his parents in order to pay off his last child support arrearages of
$63,000.00.

....

This is the third time Mr. Holleman has sought a decrease in child
support alleging the same facts. However, the only evidence Mr.
Holleman has produced with regards to this request is his own self-
serving testimony, his check stubs from Cardinal Tubing, his bank
statements from February 21 to August with no April statement, and his

5
Included in the Hearing Officer Conference is this statement:

The Hearing Officer is skeptical that this is the Father’s actual income and
is inclined to believe that his earning capacity is substantially greater, but will find,
for the purpose of calculating child support at this time, that the average monthly
income of the Father is determined to be $2,600.00. This income represents 40.52%
of the combined income of the parties.
6

2017 tax returns that were submitted with the stipulation that they were
based solely on information provided by Mr. Holleman. He has
repeatedly testified that he no longer owns or receives money from
Hollemire, LLC, however, the only evidence he has provided to support
that allegation is his own self-serving testimony. He also alleges that
he no longer owns or receives money from Workforce Solution, LLC,
or The James A. and Kelly S. Holleman Family, LLC, but the only
evidence he has provided to support that allegation is his own self-
serving testimony. It raises the question that if his only source of
income is Cardinal Tubing for roughly $2,600 a month, where the
$10,000 deposit came from.

....

Therefore, based on the evidence presented and submitted, that Mr.
Holleman has not presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that
his income has decreased warranting a decrease in child support. This
Court finds that based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
Mover did not successfully establish his income in its entirety, as
evidenced by Mover’s bank statements and testimony. Mover’s
spending habits support a belief that he has access to more money than
he is alleging. Therefore, the Court finds that the Mover did not meet
his burden of proof by presenting sufficient evidence to support a
finding that there has been a material change in circumstances
warranting a decrease in child support.

“Documentation is essential to the setting of child support.” Drury v. Drury, 01–

877, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/21/02), 835 So.2d 533, 539. In State in the Interest of

Joseph, 97–780, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/23/97), 705 So.2d 776, 779, the appellate

court stated:

Clearly, the language of the governing statutes [La.Rev.Stat.
9:315-315.47] indicates that the legislature did not intend for child
support obligations to be arbitrarily established ... by the parties.
Instead it is the trial court’s responsibility to calculate the basic child
support obligation. LSA–R.S. 9:315.2(D). In establishing or
modifying a basic child support obligation it is incumbent upon the trial
court to examine the income and financial status of both parties. In
order to do so the trial court must examine the income statements of
both parties.

Holleman’s self-serving effort in attempting to prove his disassociation from

Hollemire International and other income streams could have been met had he

provided the trial court with the various documents referenced in La.R.S. 9:315.2;

he chose otherwise. Likewise, as to the $10,000.00 deposit referenced in the trial
7

court’s written reasons, Holleman, without any documentation, asserted that he had

cashed in his 401(k) because he needed money. Considering Holleman’s repeated

difficulties of proof in his earlier attempts to reduce his child support obligation,

more than his self-serving testimony was needed to prove the source of that

significant deposit. As observed in Jackson v. Belfield, 98-440, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir.

11/25/98), 725 So.2d 32, 35, “[The father’s] lack of cooperation and failure to

comply with [La.R.S. 9:315.2] made it impossible for the trial court to establish his

income with any degree of confidence. Such obstructiveness must not be rewarded;

it should neither be allowed to inure to him nor to disadvantage his daughter.” Those

same tenets are applicable here.

Moreover, the trial court observed, for the first time, that Holleman’s spending

habits belied his allegation that his assets were limited. Under the provisions of

La.R.S. 9:315.1.1(3), the trial court properly assessed Holleman’s standard of living

and assets both prior and subsequent to the establishment of the child support order

to reach a conclusion regarding his actual income since “the amount claimed is

inconsistent with his lifestyle.” See e.g., State v. Alexander, 14-615 (La.App. 3 Cir.

11/5/14), 150 So.3d 679.

For the foregoing reasons, it is clear the trial court was not manifestly

erroneous in denying Holleman’s motion to reduce his child support obligation. This

trial court was very familiar with Holleman, his credibility, the issues of proof

required in La.R.S. 9:315.2(A), and Holleman’s past and present failures of proof.

Therefore, we find no manifest error in the trial court’s rejection of Holleman’s

motion to reduce his child support obligation.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

8