Walden v. Walden
835 So. 2d 513 (2002)
Rule of Law:
Overtime pay that was voluntarily undertaken for a specific, limited family goal is considered 'extraordinary' income and should not be included in child support calculations if its inclusion would be inequitable. A parent who stops working such overtime after a divorce is not considered voluntarily underemployed for accepting a promotion with less overtime, even if it results in a lower total income.
Facts:
- Kenneth Walden and Tracey Walden were married and had two children, Kennedi and Kameron.
- During the marriage, Kenneth Walden worked for Columbia Chemical Company, regularly working a significant amount of voluntary overtime to achieve specific family goals, such as purchasing a new home and cars.
- In 1999, Mr. Walden's gross earnings were $75,226.34, with over $23,000 attributed to overtime.
- The parties mutually agreed to send their daughter Kennedi to a private school, St. John's.
- After divorce proceedings began, Kenneth Walden stated he would no longer work voluntary overtime because the family was no longer a unit and he felt drained.
- Kenneth Walden later accepted a promotion to utility operator, which increased his hourly wage but significantly reduced the availability of overtime.
- This job change caused his monthly gross income to decrease from approximately $6,211.00 to between $4,200.00 and $4,300.00.
Procedural Posture:
- Tracey Walden filed a petition for divorce against Kenneth Walden in the trial court in St. Mary Parish, Louisiana.
- After an initial hearing, the trial court ordered Kenneth Walden to pay $1,591.00 per month in child support, basing his income on his previous earnings including substantial overtime.
- Kenneth Walden later filed a rule for reduction of child support, arguing a change in circumstances due to his new job and reduced overtime.
- The trial court denied Mr. Walden's request, finding him to be voluntarily underemployed and also denying his requests to remove private school tuition from the calculation.
- Kenneth Walden, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. Tracey Walden is the 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:
Does a parent become voluntarily underemployed for child support purposes by accepting a promotion that results in lower overall income due to a reduction in available, previously consistent overtime?
Opinions:
Majority - Fitzsimmons, J.
No, a parent who accepts a promotion and ceases working previously consistent overtime is not voluntarily underemployed when that overtime was extraordinary and undertaken for a limited goal. The court reasoned that under La. R.S. 9:315(4)(d)(iii), 'extraordinary' overtime should not be included in gross income if doing so would be inequitable. Here, the overtime was voluntarily undertaken for limited family goals (a new home and cars) that no longer existed after the family broke up. It was not a required part of his job. To classify him as underemployed would unfairly require a parent to continue working the highest level of overtime achieved, even after the motivation for it has disappeared. The court distinguished this from a parent refusing to work or intentionally taking a lower-paying job, noting Mr. Walden had, in fact, accepted a promotion.
Dissenting - Lanier, J.
Yes, the parent is voluntarily underemployed because the overtime was not 'extraordinary' but rather a regular, continuous part of his employment for over two years, establishing a standard of living for his children. The dissent argued that because Mr. Walden worked overtime every week for his entire two-and-a-half-year employment, it was 'ordinary' income that must be included in the child support calculation. The decision to take a new position with less overtime was a voluntary choice that resulted in a substantial income reduction, which constitutes voluntary underemployment. The trial court's finding that Mr. Walden acted in bad faith by reducing his income after the divorce proceedings began was a permissible view of the evidence and should not have been overturned as manifestly erroneous.
Analysis:
This case provides a key interpretation of 'extraordinary overtime' under Louisiana's child support guidelines, clarifying that the purpose and voluntariness of the overtime are critical factors. The decision protects parents from being perpetually locked into unsustainable work schedules post-divorce, particularly when the extra work was for specific marital goals that are no longer relevant. It draws a line between a parent who intentionally shirks financial responsibility and one who makes a reasonable change in work-life balance following the dissolution of the family unit. This precedent will influence future cases where a parent's income changes due to a reduction in voluntary overtime, requiring courts to look beyond the mere consistency of past overtime to its underlying purpose.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Walden v. Walden (2002)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"