Kirkpatrick v. Kirkpatrick
2007 WL 163251, 948 So. 2d 390 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court has much discretion in determining interim spousal support and child support awards, and its factual findings, including the imputation of income to a voluntarily underemployed spouse, will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion or manifest error.
Facts:
- Steven and Nancy Kirkpatrick married on May 29, 1986, in Fort Worth, Texas, and resided in Bossier City.
- During the marriage, Nancy received her masters in counseling, was licensed as a professional counselor, and established a practice in Shreveport with varying levels of effort and success.
- Steven is a colonel in the Air Force.
- On March 15, 1998, Steven and Nancy signed a "Declaration of Intent" creating a covenant marriage.
- In February 2004, Steven was assigned to Carswell Air Force Base in Fort Worth; Nancy would not relocate, so the couple maintained the marriage by commuting.
- Steven was informed of a coming transfer to Florida, and Nancy indicated she would not relocate there either.
- On January 23, 2006, Steven was transferred to Patrick Air Force Base in Cocoa Beach, Florida.
- One minor child (17 years old at the time of the hearing) lived with Nancy; another child had reached majority.
Procedural Posture:
- Steven filed for divorce in Tarrant County, Texas, on November 23, 2005, alleging physical separation.
- The Texas court declined jurisdiction.
- On January 23, 2006, Nancy filed a rule in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, for child custody, child support, spousal support (interim and final), and termination and partition of the community property regime.
- A hearing was held in the Louisiana trial court on child support and interim spousal support, where both parties testified regarding incomes, expenses, and Nancy's work history.
- The Louisiana trial judge found Nancy voluntarily underemployed, imputed $2,000 per month income to her for six months, then $3,000 per month thereafter, and set Steven's income at $12,500 per month.
- The trial judge set interim spousal support at $5,000 per month for the first six months and $4,000 per month thereafter, and child support at $1,217.26 for the first six months and $1,196.08 per month thereafter.
- Nancy appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, as the Plaintiff-Appellant.
- Steven answered the appeal, arguing the trial court imputed too little income to Nancy and too much income to him, as the Defendant-Appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is it an abuse of discretion for a trial court to impute income to a spouse found to be voluntarily underemployed for the purpose of calculating interim spousal support and child support awards?
Opinions:
Majority - Sexton, J.
No, it is not an abuse of discretion for a trial court to impute income to a spouse found to be voluntarily underemployed for the purpose of calculating interim spousal support and child support awards, nor to set income figures and determine the final awards, provided such determinations are supported by the evidence and fall within the court's broad discretion. The court noted that interim spousal support aims to maintain the status quo based on the needs of the claiming spouse, the ability of the other spouse to pay, and the marital standard of living (La. C.C. art. 113). The claiming spouse bears the burden of proving a lack of sufficient income or earning ability to maintain that standard of living. While an older case, Arrendell v. Arrendell, suggested limitations on considering earning capacity, the court clarified that Arrendell itself recognized exceptions, and later cases (e.g., Hitchens, Clark) affirmed that considering a claiming spouse's earning capacity is proper in appropriate circumstances, especially in light of modern household structures. Given Nancy's master's degree, counseling license, established (though sporadic) practice, and testimony about prior non-counseling hospital work, the trial court's finding that she was voluntarily underemployed was within its discretion. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in imputing income to Nancy for interim spousal support, noting the imputed amount was relatively low compared to her potential. For child support, the court relied on La. R.S. 9:315.9, which mandates calculating support based on a party's income-earning potential if they are voluntarily unemployed or underemployed (unless incapacitated or caring for a young child). The court found no manifest error in the trial court's determination that Nancy was voluntarily underemployed and capable of employment for child support purposes. The court also upheld the trial court's determination of Steven's income and the parties' expenses, finding no manifest error or abuse of discretion in the final awards, given the trial court's role in weighing testimony and evidence. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies and reinforces the broad discretion afforded to Louisiana trial courts in determining interim spousal support and child support, particularly regarding the imputation of income to a voluntarily underemployed spouse. It moves away from a strict interpretation of older precedents, emphasizing a more modern view that considers a spouse's full earning capacity, especially when they possess relevant degrees, licenses, or work experience, regardless of their past inconsistent employment patterns. The ruling suggests a higher expectation for spouses to contribute to their own support and that of their children, even if it requires re-entering the workforce or increasing effort in an existing profession. This approach aims to prevent one spouse from intentionally depressing their income to maximize support payments, promoting financial responsibility and self-sufficiency.
