Marjorie Ann Romero Ambrose VS Steven Ambrose

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2007 CA 0106 MARJORIE ANN ROMERO AMBROSE VERSUS STEVEN AMBROSE Judgment rendered November 2 2007 i I Vr 1cl On Appeal from the 320d Judicial District Court Parish of Terrebonne State of Louisiana Suit Number 119 429 The Honorable Randall L Bethancourt Kathryn Judge Presiding Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee S Lirette Ann Romero Ambrose Houma LA Marjorie J Louis Watkins III Counsel for Defendant Appellant Houma LA Steven Ambrose f K J BEFORE L JCtt A P ARRO S if 5S cTda KUHN AND DOWNING JJ fr5t ffe d DOWNING J appeals Steven A 1nbrose His former spouse comi a judgment sanctioning him for contempt of Marjorie Ann Romero Ambrose filed contempt in this proceeding against Mr Ambrose for violating the judgment rendered in another motion our own pursuant to notice that Ms Ambrose had against Mr Ambrose she is not no which under La right of action to we was not C C P rule for terms of a party Of 927B a we art enforce in this proceeding and Department of Social Services rendered in another was party Accordingly a in which she authority our the Louisiana judgment in favor of a proceeding a vacate the proceeding judgment in which of the trial court PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Steven Ambrose Ambrose were Ambrose bearing docket divorced dated March 14 2002 on was given was Enforcement Department 46 236 1 1 Mr Ambrose not a party enacted as were application Services for not E and Ms Mr two vs in this action children of the children were and Mr resolved within this lawsuit for and received services from the the State Department of Louisiana to that action That action bearing docket La R S 46 236 1 1 1 236 was et No was on entitled 10371 IV D repealed by seq 2 Louisiana in accordance with La R S the State filed suit Accordingly Louisiana Revised Statutes 46 re Ambrose By judgment May seeking child support and medical support Steve Ambrose 1 1998 Romero Div 119429 given sole custody of Social Services et seq Ann visitation Ms Ambrose made Support No November 10 Child suppOli issues however Rather Marjorie custody issues surrounding their Ms Ambrose resolved entitled proceeding In this 23 2001 Ms Ambrose was State of Louisiana Judgment 2003 La Acts No against 1 068 9 4 was Its vs entered provisions on were October 9 2001 in favor of the among other children Court s child support things medical bills IV D Sums due The Program Ambrose contempt and filed judgment resulting own new assigmnent to these made hearing officer a this proceeding s the rule for from that rule is at issue in this personally seeking name sanctions ordering that was appeal to enforce the rendered in favor of the finding Mr Ambrose to be in The trial comi denied Mr Ambrose s trial Mr Ambrose party ill The trial court ruled in her favor contempt and first also District court judgment from the other proceeding motion for payable to the 32nd Judicial were subsequently She filed the rule in her Department percentage of the a make past due child support and medical payments to The executory arrearages and judgment recommendations the order of the Ms Mr Ambrose to pay Department ordering of appeals asserting now he argues that the error ten assignments of error Department is an In his indispensable proceedings DISCUSSION In has a a case Department separate and distinct dependent 2 where the upon any other cause is providing services the of action that need legal proceeding La not R S be Department ancillary 46 236 1 to 1 2D or 3 formal peremptory exception under La C C P alt 927 he does argue the following language found both in La R S 46 236 1 58 and La R S 46 236 1 9 C The department shall be an indispensable pmty to any proceeding involving a support obligation or alTearages owed under While Mr Ambrose has this not filed a Subpmt numbering of the pertinent provisions ofTitle 46 has been petition against Mr Ambrose the law is substantively unchanged We also note here that while the since the 3 Depmtment filed its The full text ofthis paragraph The is as follows depmtment except when it is not in the best interest of the child illY assignment subrogation tutorship proceedings or take direct civil action divorce including actions to establish filiation an alleged biological parent notwithstanding the existence of a legal presumption against that another person is the parent of the child solely for the pmpose of fulfilling its responsibility under this Section in any COlllt of competent jmisdiction to obtain an necessity proceedings without the of written J altered The Department written Here upon certification Id being provided under then La 46 236 1 R S minor children were settled The proceedings This to support Ms Ambrose is not identified in any way to obtain in a court a an comi may order the Department as interested party the judgment amended to nothing in to be judgment C4 46 236 2B La R S together with certification services nor or agreement of depaliment is are say that from the being provided by amended support against services the ex parte to responsible under this Subpart 4 Tn pertinent pmt person in any case in The amount of such B l a be set these paragraphs Any interested party may certification from the not are state depmtment by that the contemplate furnishing FITAP for or being rendered by the department on a department on together with a witten presently furnishing and does written motion is not behalf of an individual and that behalf of the individual no services obtain from the court which rendered the order to SUPPOlt such individual an amended order to require that SUPPOlt payments be made payable to the individual or caretaker instead of the department Paragraph interested pmiy shall include only the department the owing the support obligation or the individual or caretaker to whom the support person obligation is owed b As used in this C In either of the above cases the court shall grant its order any adverse palty 4 ex it the remove providing only by order of the court or by the consent of the parties but in either case the department shall be designated as payee Additionally the department may take direct action to modify an order or judgment of SUPPOlt including actions to increase or decrease support in any case in which the department is providing services pursuant to this Subpart A separate and distinct cause of action in favor of the department is hereby created and suits brought under this provision need not be ancillary to or dependent upon any other legal proceeding Emphasis and underlining added support shall Mr established program payee and substitute the individual order iudgment which custody issues be made to her under certain conditions but that neither benefits Depmiment order of support party as a the record reflects that she has done this upon the motion of an the district judgment ordering The law does allow Ms Ambrose to have the require that payments divorce or et seq done before was Department s action resulted Ambrose to pay child and medical of necessity by the Department that services attorney filed suit against Mr Ambrose seeking against him for his two without the tutorship subrogation assigmnent proceedings were take direct civil action may parte and without hearing the Further La C C P issue only the on not Department to the party a trying s motion or the motion of See also La R S 46 236 6 which proceeding which the court 225A5 provides that art may initiate action or or the mechanism provides by Ms Ambrose is contempt proceedings in the proceeding that resulted We conclude therefore that there is medical or obligation under no she is judgment judgment establishing Ambrose Ambrose v 119429 Div E under which Ms Ambrose could seek failure to pay child she is to the action party a enforce to support rule for contempt may a not a support medical the action in which 10371 IV D We know of Department contempt citation or no judgment docket No contempt citation for Steve Ambrose vs child We further conclude that support State of Louisiana to party or a a was rendered in favor of the law that allows Ms other enforcement of this docket No Ambrose to seek a in favor of the judgment Department Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure art 927B allows the lack of a right of action The pertinent part of action noticed or a right This or of to of or our own will paragraph provides in vacate the or court motion we This article the failure plaintiff to to recognize provides disclose to institute the suit of its own may be motion in favor of the of the trial court in Ambrose follows adjudged courts own and shall state the facts motion alleged to or on motion of a party to the action constitute the contempt 5 Emphasis or added no Department Except as otherwise provided by law a person charged with committing a constructive contempt of COUlt may be found guilty thereof and punished therefor only after the trial by the judge of a rule against him to show cause why he should not be guilty of contempt and punished accordingly The rule to show cause may issue on the in a cause notice that Ms Ambrose has judgment judgment peliinent part as motion paliy appellate seek enforcement of the we a interest in the by either the trial Therefore 5 nonjoinder right Accordingly on our own us proceeding v Ambrose which is docket No at 119429 issue in this E Div All appeal rendered on December 6 2005 assignments of error are pretermitted DECREE F or the foregoing authority under right to seek of the trial on a La of reasons C C P art 927B contempt citation or Department and against Mr court in Alnbrose v our own we at Ambrose issue in this 6 to judgment our no in favor We vacate the judgment of the docket No VACATED pursuant notice that Ms Ambrose has otherwise enforce the Ambrose December 6 2005 which is motion and 119429 appeal Div E rendered MARJORIE ANN ROMERO FIRST CIRCUIT AMBROSE COURT OF APPEAL VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA STEVEN AMBROSE KUHN J I is NO 2007 CA 0106 conculTing in part because the 2005 trial concur appeal properly vacated because the State of Louisiana through the Department of Social Services Fm1her the s RS 46 236 1 9C to any mTearages owed under support enforcement suit The 2001 on See La s judgment Department v on right supp0l1 the of action was be to an support obligation a or assistance for child statute in a footnote but the basis of this statute The providing support enforcement Department filed proceedings Steve Ambrose In that proceeding a the that Mr Lawrence D Ward Jr Assistant District Depm1ment appeared medical bills R S a to this suit to department shall addressing public but ordered Mr Ambrose unpaid have maj ority references this State of Louisiana for the Ambrose party behalf of Mrs Ambrose and the minor children in judgment identified Attorney B Ambrose in 2001 and that the Mr Ambrose captioned not The provides Subpart record establishes that the to Mrs a sufficient facts proceeding involving does not vacate the trial court against establish not been made contempt indispensable pm1y services not conclusion that Mrs Ambrose does file her rule for La has Department the record does majority of reviewed in this court judgment to on to pay behalf of the payee monthly child support and the 32nd Judicial District Court IV D 46 236 1 2 D 1 Mrs Marjorie Ambrose s CUlTent rule 31 Program filed in a separate action the 32nd Judicial District Court III Ambrose under the The terms of the 2001 majority concludes enforce the 2001 to an executory for past due child support and medical payments owed judgment action seeks also within Subpart Mrs judgment that Mrs Ambrose does not have a right of Louisiana Revised Statutes 46 236 1 5 judgment B and by addressing family and child support programs provides A By accepting Family Independence Temporary Assistance Program benefits for or on behalf of himself or another individual the applicant or recipient shall be deemed without the necessity of signing any document to have made an assignment to the department of his entire right title and interest to any support obligation such applicant or recipient may have in his own behalf or on behalf of any family member for whom the applicant is applying for or receiving FITAP which has accrued and which the time of the celiification for FITAP at during the time FIT AP is furnished The assigned support rights shall constitute an obligation owed to the department by the person responsible for providing such support and said obligation shall be established by an order of a court of competent jurisdiction and the department may thereafter collect by appropriate process any outstanding debt aCClues thus created The B applicant or recipient shall also be deemed without the necessity of signing any document to have consented to the designation of the department as payee in an initial or amended order of support and to have appointed the SES program administrator in his of or her endorsing received department involving his any and all drafts checks money orders name or her instruments negotiable are place and lawful attorney in fact to and stead to perfonn the specific as a on true an act other representing suppOli payments which behalf of such individual shall be or act or indispensable party support obligation The or his caretaker to any The proceeding arrearages owed under this this Subpart shall apply Subpart provisions of retrospectively to all support rights assigned whether by written assigmnent or by operation of law prior and subsequent to October 1 1981 Emphasis added 1 Mrs Ambrose s petition for divorce filed in 1997 suit 2 was the initial pleading in the present the In Ambrose instant Mrs case during 2005 La R S 46 236 1 et seq as to Mrs Ambrose issue in this rule accrued plaintiff has assigned The majority because she has not as a Although payee an her does i judgment 2005 that Mrs The function of Mr an file exception of the of action asserted in the of particular case subject Bureau no a the to enforce the 05 0612 the be designated comply order an with the requiring her this terms make payments no right of action the class of persons petition serves to La Mr statute of the 2001 the 32nd to to is at C C P art a 927 The legal interest in Southwest v judgment obtained by the Department on Computer 1216 1217 issue Mrs Ambrose has 3 determination whom the law grants 929 So 2d 1211 La 3 17 06 a question whether the plaintiff in the Badeaux litigation custodian of the minor children enforcing can member of the class of persons that has matter of Inc to right of action is to of action right Program plaintiff belongs exception to at Department to directly payable suit a obligations which addresses the required to obtain were clearly establish no must take before it Ambrose of whether the Ambrose has 46 236 2B cannot requiring e to the with La R S 46 236 2B party establish that that any services or these benefits to generally that not the record does not make the support payments Judicial District Court IV D cause Mr Ambrose under to Mrs when the support Mrs Ambrose may be establish that she not services provide rights interested steps outlined in La R S to to Accordingly complied that being provided were during reasons required steps Ambrose enforce to of May 2001 the record does Department has continued that seeking While the record establishes support enforcement services furnished is payment of child support and medical payments for obligations s that have accrued the Ambrose an As sole interest in her behalf See La R S 46 236 6E authorizing pursuant to providing the this that the Department to provisions and remedies of this Section enforce the tenns shall be construed Subpart substitution for any other as an of a court addition remedy otherwise available to to and obtain or not in enforce order for support an Thus the record does an interest in the legal capacity subject not matter establish that Mrs Ambrose does of the suit proceed with the suit to or otherwise does By filing this effectively interrupted the Department joined in the proceedings below was not applicable prescriptive period 46 236 1 9 mandates that the court to order issued s 2005 the trial Department is judgment should court for be vacated further proceedings 4 an not suit not have have the she has But because the and La indispensable party R S the trial The matter should be remanded

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.