Lexplug logoLexplug

Levy v. Levy

Louisiana Court of Appeal
536 So. 2d 742 (1988)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Louisiana law, grandparents or other ascendants are not obligated to pay child support unless it is proven that both parents are unable to provide for the child's basic necessities and the custodial parent has exhausted all other means of obtaining support. A parent's unwillingness to pay, as opposed to their inability, does not trigger the grandparents' secondary alimentary obligation.


Facts:

  • Frances Taylor Levy and Charles A. Levy, the son of defendants Raoul and Mary Ann Levy, had two minor children together.
  • A prior court judgment ordered Charles A. Levy to pay $350 per month in child support to Frances Taylor Levy.
  • Charles A. Levy's child support payments were irregular and sporadic, causing him to fall into arrears.
  • At the time of the hearing, Charles A. Levy was employed with a salary of $600 per month plus bonuses, which was set to increase to $850 per month, and his job provided him with a house and a truck.
  • His whereabouts were known, and he was able to testify at the trial.
  • Frances Taylor Levy was employed at home soliciting customers by telephone but admitted to working very few hours, such as six hours in one week and none in the week prior.
  • Frances Taylor Levy testified that the $350 per month originally ordered from the children's father was sufficient to meet the children's basic needs.

Procedural Posture:

  • Frances Taylor Levy (plaintiff) filed suit against Raoul L. Levy and Mary Ann Levy (defendants), the paternal grandparents of her children, in a Louisiana trial court.
  • The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant grandparents to pay $600 per month in child support.
  • The trial court also entered a judgment making $3,600 in past due child support executory.
  • The trial court denied the defendants' Motion for a New Trial.
  • The defendants (appellants) took a suspensive appeal from both judgments to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Locked

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 a non-custodial parent's failure to consistently pay child support obligate the children's paternal grandparents to pay child support under LSA-C.C. art. 229, when the non-custodial parent is employed and the custodial parent has not exhausted all means of support?


Opinions:

Majority - Laborde, J.

No. The grandparents are not obligated to pay child support because the burden of caring for a child's basic needs is fundamentally a parental responsibility that does not shift to grandparents simply because a parent is unwilling, rather than unable, to pay. The court distinguished the primary parental duty of support under LSA-C.C. art. 227 from the secondary alimentary obligation of ascendants under LSA-C.C. art. 229. The latter obligation arises only upon proof that the parents are unable to provide necessities and that all other means of obtaining them have been exhausted. Here, the father was employed and his location was known, meaning legal remedies against him were not exhausted. Furthermore, the mother was underemployed and had not demonstrated an inability to increase her own contribution to the children's support. Thus, Frances Taylor Levy failed to meet her burden of proof.


Concurring - King, J.

Judge King concurs in the result, agreeing that the grandparents are not liable for child support payments under LSA-C.C. Art. 229. However, he writes separately to state his disagreement with the majority's discussion of a procedural issue regarding the availability of a suspensive appeal. He believes it was unnecessary for the court to address that procedural question, as the case could be resolved entirely on the substantive merits of the child support claim.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the primacy of the parental support obligation and sets a high bar for imposing liability on grandparents. It clarifies that the grandparents' duty is a last resort, not a substitute for an unwilling but capable parent. The ruling requires a custodial parent to demonstrate not only the child's need but also the exhaustion of all legal remedies against the delinquent parent and a full faith effort to maximize their own earning capacity. This precedent protects grandparents from being used as a convenient financial backstop for a parent evading their primary legal and moral duty.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Levy v. Levy (1988)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"