Leonard J. Carollo, III VS Trish Carollo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LQI ISTANA URT t COF APPEAL FIRST IRCl3dT N0 20i ClJ 0010 3 LEONARD J CAROLLO III VERSUS TRISH E CAROLLO udgment rendered MAY 3 1 2013 Appealed from the 22 Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Tammany Louisiana Trial Court No 2007 14051 Honorable Dawn Ama Judge ker STEPHANIE A FRATELLO ATTORNEY FOR NEW APPELLANT PLAINTIFF LA ORLEANS LEONARD J CAROLLO III ATTORNEY FOR lAMES E MOORMAN III APPELLEE DEFENDANT LA COVINGTON TRISH E CAROLLO BEFORE KUHN PE7TIGREW AND McDONALD JJ PETTIGREW J This appeal challenges numeraus aspects of a trial court judgment including the s finding that plaintiff was in contempt of court f failing to pay private school tuition for r the minor child the ruling concerning plaintififs mo to annul and amend a previous ion or consent judgment and the dismissal of plaintififs petition for change in custody For the reasons that follow we affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The record reflects that plaintiff Leonard J Carollo III and defendant Trish E Carollo were divorced by a Texas judgment dated December 22 2005 which judgment was made executory in Louisiana by order dated August 22 2007 One child Leonard J Carollo IV was born of the marriage AI ancillary matters including child support custody and visitation were addressed in the original Texas divorce judgment Thereafter in September 2007 Leonard filed a motion to modify the terms of the 2005 divorce agreement in particular visitation and his child support obligation Numerous continuances were filed by Leonard and ultimately a rule date before the hearing officer was scheduled for June 29 2009 with a hearing before the trial court scheduled for July 21 2009 Prior to the hearing officer conference Trish filed a rule requesting an increase in child support which was also set for hearing before the trial court on July 21 2009 Following the hearing officer conference or Jurue 29 2009 the parties entered into Joint a Stipulation And Consent Judgment whereby the parties retained joint custody of the child with Trish named as the domiciiiary parent Mor Leonard child support over s obligation was reduced and a procedure was put in place for the parents to pay their share of the child expenses s This judgment was signed by the trial court on July 10 2009 In November 2010 Trish filed a rule for contempt against Leonard arguing that he was in violation of the July 10 2009 judgment because he had an overnight guest of a romantic nature while exercising overnight visitation with the minor child responded to the rule for contempt 2 with various exceptions Leonard including ambiguity vagueness no cause of action and res judicata Leonard also filed his own rule for contempt against Trish arguing that she ad not been sharing information with him about the child as she was ordered to d i the July 10 2009 judgment Leonard a also moved for a chan in custody ir si e dv as aecrease m child support and cr atfo an amendment to the consent jud Tr Trish iled a supplemental rule for t ri n ere er contempt and a rule to increase cfnild support These matters were considered at a hearing officer conference on April 27 2011 at which time the hearing officer recommended that custody remain the same with the exception that Leonard was to have an additional week of visitation during the summer With regard to child support the hearing officer denied both Leonard request for a decrease and Trish request for an s s increase for failure to show a change in circumstances The hearing officer found both Leonard and Trish in contempt of court and ordered them both to pay attorney fees in connection with the finding of contempt The recommendations of the hearing ofFicer were made temporary orders of the trial court y order dated May 17 2011 pending a hearing before the trial court on July 14 2011 After a continuance by Leonard counsei the matter was heard on October 18 s 2011 Judgment was rendered in open court on Qctober 18 2011 as follows The parties were awarded joint custody with Trish rerraaining as the domiciliary parent The trial court took judicial notice of Leonard sadmission that he knowingly violated the prior consent judgment dated July 10 2009 by having an overnight guest of a romantic nature while the child was present The trial court deferred adjudication on the contempt issue but ordered Leonard to pay Trish court costs associated with filing the rule for contempt s The trial court again reiterated the overnight guest prohibition from the July 10 2009 consent judgment but included an exclusion for Leonard girlfriend Eriana Antoun The s trial court ordered that the child continue ta be enroiled in private school and that all expenses attributable to his educat be split between the parties equally commencing on with the 2011 school year A parenting coordinator Dr Stephen W Thompson 2012 was appointed by the trial court to make recommendations regarding the child Trish s rule for contempt and rule to increase child support were dismissed with prejudice 3 Leonard was awarded one e weeK oP visitaiicn in the summer and his rules for ra contempt to modify custody ar t decrease ci support were dismissed with d sld prejudice It was further or that al ottieE p of the July 10 2009 consent ered ovisions judgment not express mocfified va r fulf ar4e and effect Written judgment y id a rriaie ir to this effect was not signed by the triai cour unt9 April 23 2012 On March 30 2012 Leonard filed anokher pet for change in custody and ition or increased visitation In said petition Leonard also sought removal of Trish as domiciliary parent and requested that the child be enrolled in a school that could accommodate his special needs as a gifted student Attached to Leonard petition was a letter from the s parenting coordinator Dr Thonnpson to counsel for both parties in which Dr Thompson outlined his suggestion with regard to the child education On May 24 s 2012 Trish again filed a rule for centempt agafnst Leonard this time arguing that Leonard had wilifully violated the April 23 2012 consent judgment by refusing to pay his share of the chiid school tuition for the 2011 schQOl year s 2012 On May 30 2012 Leonard filed a motion to annul and amend and vacate the April 23 2012 consent ar or judgment and a motion for sanctions These matters proceeded to a hearing officer conference on June 6 2012 at which time the hearing officer made the following recommendations The father motion for modification of legal custody is denied s The father sphysical custody is rnodified as follows On the father custodial week khe child shall be returned Monday s ends morning to school All other physical custody as provided in Consent Judgments of 7 2009 10 and 4remain in effect 2012 23 Leonard is nereby found to be in cantempt of the prior arder of this Court for faiiure to pay private school ruition timely He is hereby sentenced to serve 3 days in the parish jail and fined 00 300 payable to the Judicial Expense Fund The fine and sentence are suspended on the following condition s 4 The father paying his 50 share of the private school tuition fa by 7 2012 31 The father not beiny found in cankempt of court in any further P raceedin 9 s Leonard filed an objection to the F off reA and therefore the y s ar aror er ommendat s recommendations were never made th tj of the tria court Rather they reai dyrr ent became a temporary order of the trial cour with th exception of the recommendations on contempt which remained recommen only pending the hearing before the trial ations court I The matter proceeded to hearing before the trial court on 7uly 31 2012 at which time the court heard testimony from both Leonard and and considered documentary Trish evidence With regard to Leonard motion to annul and amend and vacate the s or or April 23 2012 consent judgment and motion for sanctions the trial court denied the motion to annul the consent judgment in whale but granted the request to amend the judgment in part as it related to Leonard summer visitation The trial court amended s the judgment to remove all language from the summer visitation clause except to state that Leonard was afforded an e week of visikafion in che summer ra In all other respects the motion was denoed a tne Apri 23 2 onsent judgment remained in nd J12 effect as written The ne matter taker uF vuas teonar r on custody visitation change in s l aie domiciliary status and choice of school for the cnild At the conclusion of Leonard s testimony on these issues counsel for Trish moved far n involuntary dismissal on the grounds that Leonard did not his burden of proof The trial court granted the carry request for involuntary dismissal finding that Leonard had not met his burden of proving that there was a material change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child since the last judgment was entered into the record on October 18 2011 Finally the trial court considered the contempt issue Trish testified regarcfing s Leonard refusal to pay the child tuition for the 2011 school year According to s I2012 the record by April 12 2012 Leonard was aware of what his share of the tuition was and 5 that it was due to the schoUf on M x ec s TrisF an erraii on April 30 2012 ay nard t advising as follows vith regaru t tne tuitian payment written recommendatiori that y Len b re ir a d enroll in ight of Dr Thompson s gifted program and due to the pending court dates in June and uNy r ardirg 7r Thein srecommendation I will son not pay Lenny tuition until thE c ir r s urt ic fing cor Lenny education s cerning s When Trish was tendered for cross examination counsel for Leonard urged exceptions raising the objections of prematurity and no cause of action The following colloquy occurred Counsel for Leonard Your Honor I would like to move for exception of prematurity in this To give you a little procedural histary the rul for contempt was action filed on May 24th 2012 Howev rthe payment wasn tdue until May lst of 2012 In the 2009 judgment it gives Leonard two months time to by Trish including any fees any pay any fees that have been incurred monetary fees that would be involved Also we had a Hearing Officer Conference And the hearing officer gave Leonard until July 31st to pay this of which I have a check here today for her Counsel for Trish of A that a recommendation of the hearing officer B an exception s I am not sure prematurity is a deciinatory or dilatory exception which must be raised prior to filing an answver Whife an answer wasn t due we are prematurity now at the end of a trial s It too late to object to Counselfor Leonard Exception of no cause of action Your kionor Counsel for Trish s It been ve they got to fle that before we start the trial Your Honor Counsel for Leonard I can do that on the day of tn al Counsel forTrish But we started ve THE COURT But why would you do that Why wouid you do that and waste my time on this 6 Counsel for Leonard Well Your Honor I didn have a choice t THE COURT Well the Court is goin tca deny the Qral motion for the exceptions s There several reasons The mai one yvouia be it moot You know s s she just testified your ciient sent her an e nr a te saying he wasn riael ct t going to pay it She had ta file the cont He didn say I have two mpt c months to pay it correct Counsel for Leonard No Your Nonor That no v the e says It actually says s fia l ma THE COURT What did the e say mail Counsel for Leonard It actually says I will not pay Lenny tuition until the Court makes s a ruling He isn denying that he owes tuition t THE COURT s That not what the judgment says Counsel for Leonard Your Honor he only he has the 2004 judgment does say that THE COURT Until the Court makes a he o aling thave to pay sn Counsel for Leonard j The Court 31st If the it J slst sic Payrr wasn due until June ly nt t until Aaril and the hearing officer in t receipt wasri given the Hearing O Conference ot was brought up It said that he sald he cer would pay it THE COURT s That a recommendatior only Counsel for Leonard I understand that Your Honor already had this pending b the Court fore tuition had ne not But I am telling you that we He would not have owed this had U Little Lenny not gone to school next year 7 i THE COURT s That not the law He p accordiny to a court order until the ys Court changes it Then if F is entitled ta aredit or reim we e aursement give it to him But yo are not correct on the lar ou Y have had months to fale an ex 5 have not Today you on ept ou wait until the end of this hearin and yau bring forth tYais exception of j prematurity You didn file it in ti record Yo don have a written t e t s written exception today It moot because your client has already evidence has been offered chat he wasn going to pay until the Court t ruled ThaYs not the law And he would be in contempt of court if thaYs what he is telling this lady after he agreed in a judgment to pay it in the consent judgment of October He doesn get to file something keep a t child from being able to go to school or a child to be supported while he s waiting on a court to see if I am going to go along with what he wants to change in the last judgment He doesn tget to do that And if you can show me any law or any case that says that I will look at it But I ve been doing this quite some time and I think I safe on this one m So the bottom line is the exception is denied The exception were it to be filed would be moot It is clear that he tofd her he wasn going t to pay it until the Court said whether or not he got to decide did the child go to another schooL So the exception is denied It was untimeiy filed And even had I had it to consider it would have been moot Following the trial court ruling on the exception testimony on the contempt issue s continued Thereafter the trial court found L in contempt of the October 18 onard 2011 consent judgment noting as follows Today it has been successfully proven to the Court that he is in contempt of the court orders of October 18th 2011 which was a s Consent Judgment that is very clear In the judgment he is ordered to I want to cite exactly the paragraph pay Page 2 the middle of the page It is further ordered adjudged and decreed that the minor child shall continue to be enrolled in private school dt is not limited to any schoolterm This was a long day VVe had many conversations with counsel and with the parties The transcript is extensive of the stipulation being placed on the record It is absolutely cfear this was not limited to any school year It says The tuition and registration fees attributable to the minor s chiid enrollment in private school shall be split between the parties with each party being responsible for 50 percent of the same commencing with the 2011 school year We wouldn 2012 thave said commencing if it only meant that school year in the Court s commencing opinion The judgment is clear Trish has proven bK the appropriate burden of proof that Leonard is in contempt of those orders of this 8 The Court finds th was donQ intentionally knowingly and s court This constitutes willful le purposefully without justifia excuse disobedience of a judgment of this court He corrtinues to show a lack of respect for the court orders He jeopardized this child enrollment in s s s in which he agreed he chlld was to be enrolled the school It has required the mother to spend r f t pay the entire amount and wait e nds until today when he finally gives t a check today in tha amount of ier 50 347 2 In addition to that amnui h is to pay the sum of 1400 t s attorney fees and court costs to Mr Jim Moormen and his client within seven days hereof I don tknow what the court costs are You can find that out from the Clerk sOffice The Court is second rule for him going contempt to sentence s that Leonar to before the Court this being the is going to sentence serve to serve a sentence of 30 days in the t Tammany Parish jail The sentence is suspended upon nim paying the 1400 plus court costs within seven days hereof In addition he will be on probation for a period of one year This will be unsupervised probation through the 22nd Judicial District Court As a term of his probation the sentence will be suspended but subject to being served if he does not continue to pay his obligations as court ordered for child support that includes the tuition timely The former requirernent if there is one from a judgment in 2009 that in your interpretation Ms Fratello cc for Leonard would allow unsel him to wait two months after the tuitfon is due to pay Trish that is going to be amended The tuition is to be paid immediately as she sends it to him within seven days thereof and certainly bef it is due to the school re as incurred In addition if he was allowed 90 days before that is going to be reduced on any other expenses im 30 days Those are to be paid within 30 days No longer are we having 9Q days to pay anything I am not expecting this moth have to put out all of this money and wait 90 rto days to get reimbursed by your client A judgment in accordance with these findinGs was signed by the trial court on August 27 2012 It is from this judgme tthat e9nard has appealed assigning the following specifications of error 1 The trial court erred in failing to allow the parenting coordinator to testify at trial and by failing to allow the parenting coordinator s correspondence to be admitted at trial pursuant to La art 1636 P C 2 The trial court erred in granting Defendant motion for s Appellee involuntary dismissal of a of Plaintiff I Appellant sclaims without hearing all evidence 9 The trial court abused its diseretion ir amending ti A 23 2012 e ril consent judgment as it pertains to dismissal with prejudice and amending the July 10 2009 consent judgment on its ov motion with respect to n 3 decreasing the timeline for r expenses t mbursemer of 4 The trial oGrk a abus erre discretion its ir denying s Appeilant Plaintiff requesi f increasea ris pursuan to La s tation t S P b 2 Aj 335 9 when there was no evid tnat increase in visitation e was noz warranted an the A 23 201 cn judgment reserved the l r ent right for PlaintifflAppelac t rt or of cp in t ssert itieation change stody visitation as a result in his 5 The trial court nce resi from Texas to Louisiana chanye abused erred discretion its in holding Appellant Plaintiff in contempt of court for failing to timely pay tuition for private schooL LAW AND ANALYSIS enting Pa Coordinator In his first assignment of error Leonard argues that in making its ruling the trial court should have considered the correspondence submitted by the parenting coordinator Leonard maintains hat the correspon arguably a report was ence submitted and was merely presented for the court referenee He further notes that s the parenting coordinator sinput was cruc and relevant to the matter at triai al It is well settled that the trial c is not required to aBlow the parer urt ting coordinator to be called as a witness Moreover the pare eoordinator shall not be nting called as a witness without prior approva of the trial eourt La R 9 As S 358 5 correctly pointed out by Trish in brief Leonard has ot alleged that he requested or received prior approval of the trial court to call Dr Thompson as a witness or that this approval was erroneously denied In fact this ve issue was discussed by the trial y court below during the hearing Dr Thompson is the parenting coordinator No one filed to have the parenting coordinator testify Even if they had feled to have him testify it is in my discretion Most times we don tallnw the parenting coordinators to testify because the law discourages that Vlfe want them to continue to be objecti and be your parenting coordinator So I am not going to e Louisiana Revised Statutes 9 provldes as follaws 5 358 A The parentincj coordinator shall not be calNed as a writness in the child custcdy proceeding withoui prior ceurt approvai B The parenting coordinator shall distribute ali reports to the court the parties and their aYtorneys 10 i allow into evidence by your testimon v Dr Th has said to rhat mpson either one of you Based on aur revie of the recor and ap lavu we find rio error in the trial v Aicable s court ruling on th issue is untary Invo Dismissa In assignment of error number two Leanard challenges the trial court ruling on s s Trish motion for involuntary dismissal of Leonard srule on custody visitation change in domiciliary status and choice of school for the child He argues that premature dismissal of all of his claims prior to testimony by Trish resulted in the trial court inability to s consider all factors that were in the best interest of the child Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1672 provides for a motion for B involuntary dismissal of a plaintiffs action in the course of a bench trial In an action tried by the court without a jury after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence any parry without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted may move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the facts and law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief The court may then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence Unlike a motion for directed verdict in a jury trial Article 1672 requires the trial court Bj to evaluate all the evidence and render a decssion based upon a preponderance of the evidence without any special inferences in favar of the opponent to the motion Proof by a preponderance of the evidence simp means that taking the evidence as a whole y such proof shows that the fact or cause saught ao be proved is more probable than not Connelly v Connelly 94 p la La App 1 Cir 10 b44 So 789 798 0527 94 7 2d An involuntary dismissal shouid not be reversed by an ppellate court in the absence of manifest error Cosman v Cabrera 2009 p La App 1 Cir 0265 09 23 3d 10 28 So 1075 1081 Accordingly in order to reverse the trial court grant s of involuntary dismissal we must find after reviewing th record that there is no factual basis for its finding or that the finding is clearly wrong or manifestly erroneous Stobart v State through Dept ofTransp and Development 617 So 880 882 2d 11 La 1993 The issue is nok whether the trial court was right or wrong but whether its conclusion was reasonable Id When a custody decree is as herein a stipufated or consensual judgment a parry seeking modifiGation o eustody rr pr thafi tie has beer f si re in circumstances ed as also refer to a rhang materiaf change es ireumscan materially affecting the welfare of the child since the origina aecreE as v as prove that the proposed efi modification is in the best interest of the child Cedotal v Cedotal 2005 1524 pp 5 La App 1 Cir 11 927 433 43G If the first prong pf khe test is 6 05 2d 4 So not met and a material change in circums is not shown the inquiry ends and ances there is no basis for altering the physical custody decree Lunney v Lunney 2011 1891 p 4 App 1 Cir 2 91 So 350 353 writ denied 2012 La La 12 10 3d 0610 12 4 85 So 130 3d After Leonard presented his evidence on the rule on custody visitation change in domiciliary status and choice of school for the child Trish moved for an involuntary dismissal arguing that Leonard had failed to carry his burden of proving a prima facie case that her decision to e pla the child in hooV private s adversely affected the child that a modification in physical custody since last October is adversely affecting the chi or that d s she abused her positior as domiciliary parent The trial court after hearing argu frorn respeetive counsei ruled as fallows nt n on Trisf motion s he T first issue for the Court to consider there was a motion or rule for the Caurt to consider whether or not the decision of the primary domiciliary parent should be overturned in deciding that the ch remain ld enrolled in the private school that the parties agreed to back in October of last year Leonard would have had to have net his burden of proof By law so The Court is going to grant the request for involuntary dismissal of his rule to overturn the decision of the domiciliary he has not done parent as far as the choice of sch for the child ol On the second matter that was heard today khere is a request by Leonard to for the Court to change custody of the chi and the d arrangement to a shared custady arrangement ar an arrangement in which there would be no domiciliary parent or that the mother would be removed from a least the primary decision and role of primary domiciliary sauthority on certain issues parent 12 The burden of proof is that iLeorard wouid have to have proven that since October of last year when the last stipulated judgment was entered in this matter October it came to court October 18kh 2011 in which they reached certain agreements that after that because there was at that time various rui becuve the arties including rules to s r modify custody they were aii set Everything was d They were le e done with prejudice ak that poira nie ti anc they are reurging many of the same issues that were before cne QUrt back in October when everyone agreed to settle thas iria ter But it the decision of the Court that Leonard has not met his s burden of proving that there is a material change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of this child since the last judgment was entered in this record of October 18th 2011 and therefore the Court is going to grant the motion to dismiss involuntarily dismiss on Trish s behalf Mindful that it was Leonard burden to prqve a material change in circumstances s since the original decree and that the proposed modifcations were in the best interest of the child we find no manifest error in the trial court grant of Trish motion for s s involuntary dismissal of Leonard rule on cusEody visitation change in domiciliary status s and choice of school for the child s egedAmendmenf A ofConsentludgmentr Leonard ne argues that the trial court erred in amending the Apnl 23 2012 consent judgment as it pertains to dismissal with prejudice and amending the July 10 2009 consent judgment on its own motion with respect to decreasing the timeline for reimbursement of expenses We find no merit to these arguments on appeaL With regard to the alleged amendment of the April 23 2012 consent judgment we find no such language in the August 27 2012 judgment that is before us for review Rather the trial court simply noted dureng the 7uly 31 2012 hearing that when the matter came before it on Ockober 18 2011 the parties had eached certaf agreements and all matters were settled with prejudi at that pofnt in time In fact the April 23 2012 e consent judgment that appears in the record before us contains the following pertinent language IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that s Mother Rule for Contempt and to Increase Chi Support is hereby d dismissed with prejudice 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AD AND DECREED that UDGED s Father Rules for Contempt to Modify Custody and to Decrease Child Supportare hereby dismissed wi prejudice h Thus no amendment by the trial co rtwas nec as the pertonent dismissals in the r ssa April 23 2012 judgment were aVrea ith r yu j idice With regard to the trial oiart amend of the 7 10 2009 consent s ent 1y judgment with respect to the timeline for reimbursement of expenses we find no error in this as Leonard was held in contempt for his failure to pay the child private school s tuition The trial court found that it was done intentionally knowingly and purposefully without justifiable case and wanted t insure that Trish would be timely reimbursed for all expenses related to the child tuition and eactivities in s racurricular the future Based on the facts and circumstances herein we find this action by the tria court to be reasonable and vuithout error oflncreased Denia Visitation In assignment of error number four Leonard asserts the trial court erred in denying his request Por increased visitation pursuant to La R 9 S 335 b 2 A Leonard maintains that he wants to be an integral part of his son life and that he has s the financial means the capabilety iove and affection to spend as much time as possible with his son Citing Harang v Ponder 2009 La App 1 Cir 3 2182 10j 26 36 So 954 writ denied 2 a 5 36 So 219 as suppork fer his 3d Q926 10 iQ 19 3q position Leonard argues that he sho be arvarded ncreased visitation with the child ld and that a new omplementation plan should be instituted Leonard further confends Z Louisfana Revised Statutes 9 pr in pertinent part as follows 335 vides A 1 In a proceeding in which joint custody is decreed the court shall render a joint astody implementation order except for good cause shown a 2 he impiementation order shall allocate the time periods during which each parent shall have physical custody of the cf so that the child is assured of ild frequent and cont contact wfth both parents nuing b To the extent it is feasibie and in the best unterest of the child physicaE custody of the children should be shared equally 1 3 The impfementation order shall allocate the legal authority and responsiboiity of the parents 14 that he should be successfuE in h bdd r iracreased visikatian t s ecause Trish did not present any evidence to contradi hi t evidence W find no merit to Leonard s arguments in tPiis r gard As previously indicated L as t parer d ra tseeking rof a odification consensual custody decree bore th s c esta the accurrence of a change tder f ishong in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of his child and that his proposed modification of the existing custody arrangement would be in the best interest of his child Cedotal 2005 at 5 927 So at 436 Leonard failed in his burden thus Trish 1524 6 2d was not required to submit evidence to rebuk insufficient evidence See Soignet v Soignet 546 So 541 544 La App 1 Cir 1989 Therefore we find no error in the 2d trial court denial of his request for in visitation s reased Contempt In his final assignment of err Leonard argues the triai court abused its r discretion in holding him in contempt for failing to camely pay the chifd private schoof s tuition Leonard asserts that he believed he on had to pay for private school tuition y for the 2011 school year as there was nc court erder in piace ordering payment 2012 of private scho tuition for the 201rm2Q13 school year Based on the applicable law l and the record before us we nd na suppork for anar argument s d A constructive civil contempt of court includes the w disobedience of any illfu lawful judgment order mandate writ or process of the eourt La Code Civ P art 2 224 A finding that a person willfuliy disobeyed a court order in violation of Article 2 224 must be based on a finding that the person violated an order of the court intentionally knowingly and purposefully without justiflabie excuse Boyd v Boyd 1369 2010 p 15 La App 1 Cir 2 57 So 1169 i1E11 3d 1fl78 1179 As discussed by the triai court telow the la in the April 23 2012 consent guage judgment is very clear with respect to the private sehooi tuition It states as follaws IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AD AND DECREED that IUDGED the minor child shall continue to be enrolled in private schooL The tuikion and registration fees attributable to the minar chiid enrollment in private s school shall be splot be the parties with each party being ween 15 responsible for fifty percent 57 of the same cummencing with the 2012 2011 school year In finding Leonard guilty of contempt th kria court painted at the use of the word commencing noting that in the courk op w wouldn s nion rhave said commencing if it only meant that school y The triai ce continued finding that Trish had ar urt shown Leonard intentional knowing anc p contempt of the court order s rposefuf s that he pay the child private school tuition The trial court concluded that Leonard s s actions constituted willful disobedience of a judgment of this court and that he continued to show a lack of respect for th court rders s As this was the second rule for contempt that was before the court Leonard was sentenced to serve 30 days in St Tammany Parish Jail which was suspended upon his 00 400 payment of 1 in attorney fees and court costs He was also placed on unsupervised probation for one year Based on a thorough review of the record and the facts and circumstances before us in this case we are unable to find any abuse of discretion in the trial court finding of contempt or the resulting sentence imposed on s Leonard E DECR For the above and foregoing reasans we afFrm the trial court August 27 2012 s judgment We assess all costs assoc wikh this appeal against piainkiff Leonard J ated Carollo IIL AFFIRMED 16
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.
