Leger v. Leger
2001 WL 498578, 808 So. 2d 632 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may impose a determinate, punitive jail sentence for constructive contempt for failure to pay child support without providing an opportunity to purge the contempt by payment, provided the defendant is afforded the full constitutional protections of a criminal proceeding, including proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Facts:
- Kin Allen Leger was subject to a court order requiring him to pay child support and alimony to Holly Brunet Leger.
- In November 1998, Mr. Leger was involved in an automobile accident that left him totally incapacitated with a dislocated shoulder and a fractured navicular.
- As of December 1, 1998, Mr. Leger owed $5,500 in past-due child support and alimony, a substantial portion of which had accrued before his accident.
- Following the accident, Mr. Leger's income decreased to $1,846 per month in compensation payments.
- Mr. Leger acknowledged paying only $100 toward his support obligation in the months following his filing to reduce support.
- Mr. Leger did not attempt to discuss his inability to pay with Ms. Leger; he simply stopped making the required payments.
- Mr. Leger also had an infant son with a new partner who had significant medical bills, which he also had not paid.
Procedural Posture:
- Kin Leger filed a rule in a Louisiana trial court to reduce his child support and terminate alimony.
- Holly Leger responded by filing a rule for contempt against Kin Leger for his failure to pay the court-ordered support.
- The parties submitted a stipulation to the court resolving most issues, but the rule for contempt proceeded to a hearing.
- The trial court found Kin Leger in contempt of court and sentenced him to serve fourteen days in jail.
- Kin Leger, as appellant, filed a suspensive appeal of the contempt judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, against appellee Holly Leger.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does imposing a determinate jail sentence for constructive contempt for failure to pay child support, without an opportunity for the defendant to purge the contempt by paying the arrears, violate the defendant's due process rights if the contempt proceeding provided criminal constitutional protections?
Opinions:
Majority - Weimer, J.
No. A determinate jail sentence for contempt does not require a purge clause if the defendant was afforded all the constitutional protections of a criminal proceeding. The court distinguishes between civil contempt, which is coercive and allows the contemnor to avoid punishment through compliance, and criminal contempt, which is punitive and punishes past disobedience. A fixed jail sentence without a purge clause is criminal in nature. In this case, Mr. Leger received the requisite constitutional safeguards: he had notice, was represented by counsel, willingly testified, and his guilt for willfully disobeying the support order was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the punitive sentence was permissible and did not violate his due process rights.
Concurring - Kline, J.
No. The punishment was criminal in nature and could only be imposed if state and federal constitutional protections were applied, which they were in this case. A trial court is not required to include a purge clause in a contempt punishment. However, if the court imposes a determinate sentence without a purge clause, the punishment becomes criminal in nature. This requires the trial judge to ensure the defendant is afforded all constitutional protections, including proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to counsel. Because Mr. Leger's guilt was established under these criminal standards, the sentence was valid.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the important distinction between civil and criminal contempt within the context of family support orders in Louisiana. It affirms that trial courts possess the authority to impose purely punitive, determinate jail sentences for willful non-payment, rather than being limited to coercive civil remedies. This provides a stronger enforcement mechanism against recalcitrant obligors. However, the ruling also establishes a critical procedural safeguard: when a court opts for a punitive sentence (i.e., one without a purge clause), it must treat the proceeding as criminal in nature and guarantee the defendant receives full criminal due process protections.
