State of Louisiana in the Interest of Tamara Kirkland v. Shedrick Kirkland ( 2023 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
NO. 2022 CA 0790
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF
TAMARA KIRKLAND V. SHEDRICK KIRKLAND
Judgment Rendered. MAR 0 3 2023
Appealed from the
21st Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa
State of Louisiana
Case No. 2020- 0002+
256
The Honorable Jeffrey Cashe, Judge Presiding
DaShawn P. Hayes Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
New Orleans, Louisiana Tamara Kirkland
Scott M. Perrilloux Counsel for Appellee
District Attorney State of Louisiana
Amite, Louisiana
Cassandra Butler
Assistant District Attorney
Independence, Louisiana
Angela F. Lockett Counsel for Defendant/ Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana Shedrick Kirkland
BEFORE: THERIOT, CHUTZ, AND HESTER, JJ.
THERIOT, J.
This appeal arises from a judgment rendered in a child support enforcement
proceeding. For the reasons set forth herein, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 1, 2020, the State of Louisiana, Department of Children and
Family Services (" the Department") filed a Rule to Show Cause against Shedrick
Kirkland on behalf of Tamara Kirkland to set child support for the parties' minor
children.
At the hearing on the rule to set support, counsel informed the hearing
officer' that the parties had entered into a consent judgment, which was filed into
the record. The March 1, 2021 consent judgment ordered Shedrick to pay child
support in the amount of $785. 38 per month, plus an administrative fee of 5%,
effective September 1, 2020. The consent judgment further provided that Shedrick
would either obtain medical insurance for the minor children and pay 53. 09% of all
extraordinary medical expenses not covered by private insurance, or pay $ 18. 70
per month in the event private insurance is not available. In addition to the
monthly support payment, Shedrick was ordered to pay $ 25. 00 per month, plus a
5% administrative fee, effective March 1, 2021, towards the arrearage owed, and to
pay court costs and public defender fees. The consent judgment set a review date
of May 7, 2021, for prospective modification only.
The court minutes reflect that at the May 7, 2021 review hearing, the
Department moved for the " Interim Judgment" to be made permanent. The review
hearing was subsequently continued a number of times by the hearing officer, and
Louisiana Revised Statutes 46: 236. 5 sets forth procedures establishing an expedited process for certain family and
domestic matters using hearing officers. Under La. R. S. 46: 236. 5( C)( 3), the hearing officer " shall act as a finder of
fact and shall make written recommendations to the court concerning any domestic and family matters," including
the establishment, modification, method of collection, and enforcement of child support. The written
recommendations of the hearing officer shall contain a statement of the pleadings; a statement as to the findings of
fact by the hearing officer; a statement as to the findings of law based on the pleadings and facts, including the
hearing officer' s opinion thereon; and a proposed judgment. La. R.S. 46236.5( C)( 5). In the event a party disagrees
with the hearing officer' s judgment or ruling, he or she may file a written objection to be heard by the district court
to whom the case is assigned. Upon the filing of such an objection, the district court shall schedule a contradictory
hearing where the judge shall accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part the findings of the hearing officer. The
judge in his discretion may also receive additional evidence at the hearing or remand the proceedings to the hearing
officer to receive evidence. La. R.S. 46: 236. 5( 0)(6). A hearing officer may also accept stipulated agreements
setting forth the amount of support to be paid. La. R.S. 46: 236.5( C)( 4)( h).
2
on November 5, 2021, the matter was continued until February 7, 2022, to be heard
by District Court Judge Jeffrey Cashe.
On January 31, 2022, Tamara filed a " Memorandum of Law" in which she
objected to " the hearing officer' s recommendation that is set for hearing on
Z
February 8, 2022." Tamara requested that the court " overrule[] the hearing
officer' s recommendation regarding child support" because the Department had
proffered a child support obligation worksheet to the hearing officer for the
calculation of support wherein Shedrick " sought to be credited several
reimbursements from his alleged self-employment" to which he was not entitled.
Although La. R.S. 46: 236. 5( C) requires that both the hearing officer' s
recommendation and any objection filed thereto be in writing, neither was attached
to Tamara' s memorandum, nor are they contained elsewhere in the record. Tamara
attached the following exhibits to her " Memorandum of Law": the November 6,
2020 child support obligation worksheet; an untitled, undated spreadsheet
containing income and expense data and handwritten calculations; and copies of
two of Shedrick' s paystubs.
The court minutes for February 7, 2022 state that a review hearing was held
on that date on the " Interim Order," and thereafter, the " Court denied exception
and ordered interim order become final order." Although the February 7, 2022
court minutes suggest that this hearing was held before the hearing officer, the
record also contains a transcript of a February 7, 2022 hearing before Judge Cashe.
See Williams v. Cooper, 2005- 2360, p. 6 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 1016/ 06), 945 So. 2d 48,
51 ( where there is a discrepancy between a minute entry and a transcript, the
transcript prevails). On April 1, 2022, Judge Cashe signed a judgment stating:
z It is unclear from a review of the record whether this date is an error. Although the court minutes reflect that the
Review of Interim Order" was continued to February 7, 2022, and the record contains a transcript of a hearing on
February 7, 2022 on the " Exception to Hearing Officer Recommendation," the judgment appealed in this case states
that it was issued following a February 8, 2022 hearing on the " Plaintiff' s Objection to Hearing Officer
Recommendation."
3
This matter came before this Honorable court on the Plaintiff's
Objection Hearing Officer
to Recommendation child
regarding
support on February 8, 2022.
The Court, considering the law and evidence, and stipulations
of the parties,does hereby make the following Judgment of this
Honorable Court:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the
Plaintiff's objection to the hearing officer' s recommendation
regarding child support calculation is OVERRULED. The
recommendation of the hearing officer regarding the child support
obligation is adopted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
that this judgment be designated as final for appeal purposes pursuant
to La. C. C.P. art. 1915, et seq.
Tamara filed a devolutive appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in making
the interim order of child support permanent" and in denying her " objection to the
interim order of support and hearing officer' s recommendation." After the appeal
record was lodged, this court issued a rule to show cause, ordering the parties to
show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed. The show cause order states,
in part:
The April 1, 2022 judgment that is at issue in the instant appeal
references a document that is not attached to the judgment.
Specifically, the judgment references the " recommendation of the
hearing officer regarding the child support obligation." A valid
judgment must be " precise, definite, and certain." These
determinations should be evident from the language of a judgment
without reference to other documents in the record, such as pleadings
and reasons for judgment. ( Citations omitted)
Tamara, Shedrick, and the Department each filed a response to the rule to
show cause order. Tamara averred that the April 1, 2022 judgment is " precise,
definite and certain" because it " references the only hearing officer
recommendation that is within the record, which is the interim order on March 1,
2021." As such, Tamara requested that her appeal be maintained, or in the
alternative, that this court " order that a modified judgment be submitted to the
district court for signature." Shedrick contended that the reference in the judgment
4
to the hearing officer' s recommendation was an error, and the judgment should
have referenced the consent judgment. Further, he urged that the April 1, 2022
judgment is not a valid judgment for purposes of appeal. The State also took the
position that the April 1, 2022 judgment should be dismissed " due to the judgment
not being complete with the specifics of what the child support was set at."
Thereafter, this court issued an Interim Order on November 7, 2022, stating,
in part:
T] he April 1, 2022 judgment at issue in this appeal references the
hearing officer' s recommendation," but the hearing officer' s
recommendation is not attached to the judgment. We recognize that
the appellees submit that there was never a " hearing officer' s
recommendation,"
but only a consent judgment. In either event, the
judgment itself does not attach any extrinsic document that reflects the
child support award nor does the judgment itself otherwise specify the
child support award therein without reliance on an outside document.
Accordingly, this court remanded the matter for the limited purpose of
instructing the trial court, in accordance with La. C. C. P. art. 1951, to sign an
amended judgment that corrects the deficiencies and complies with La. C. C.P. art.
1918,. and instructing the Clerk of Court' s Office of Tangipahoa Parish to
supplement the appellate record with the amended judgment by December 7, 2022.
Although the appellate record was supplemented with a number of items on
December 29, 2022, the supplement did not contain an amended judgment as
ordered by this court. In addition, all of the items included in the supplement were
already part of the appellate record and predated this court' s rule to show cause
order, with the exception of the November 7, 2022 Interim Order.
DISCUSSION
As an appellate court, we have the duty to examine our subject matter
jurisdiction and to determine sua sponte whether such subject matter jurisdiction
exists, even when the issue is not raised by the litigants. Advanced Leveling &
Concrete Solutions v. Lathan Company, Inc., 2017- 1250, p. 3 ( La.App. 1 Cir.
R
12120/ 18), 265 So. 3d 1044, 1046 ( en banc). This court' s appellate jurisdiction
only extends to " final judgments." Rose v. Twin River Development, LLC, 2017-
0319, p. 4 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 1111/ 17), 233 So. 3d 679, 653; see also La. C. C. P. art.
2083( A).
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1918 mandates that a final
judgment be identified as such by appropriate language. It is well settled that a
final judgment must be precise, definite, and certain, and must contain decretal
language. Carter v. Carter, 2021- 1173, p. 4 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 5112122), 342 So. 3d
391, 394. Decretal language must name the party in favor of whom the ruling is
ordered, the party against whom the ruling is ordered, and the relief that is granted
or denied. Id. The specific relief granted must be determinable from the judgment
so that a third person is able to determine from the judgment the amount owed
without reference to other documents. Hill International, Inc. v. JTS Realty Corp.,
2021- 0157, p. 5 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 12/ 30/ 21), 342 So. 3d 322, 326. Where the amount
of an award must be determined by a future contingency or ascertained by extrinsic
reference, it is not a proper judgment. Carter, 2021- 1173 at n. 1, 342 So. 3d at 394,
n. 1. In the absence of such decretal language, the ruling is not a valid final
judgment, and in the absence of a valid final judgment, this Court lacks
jurisdiction. Carter, 2021- 1173 at 4, 342 So. 3d at 394.
The April 1, 2022 judgment before us on appeal is lacking in specificity as
to the relief granted. The judgment states only that Tamara' s objection to the
hearing officer' s recommendation is overruled and the hearing officer' s
recommendation regarding the child support obligation is adopted. However, the
judgment does not set forth the substance of the hearing officer' s recommendation
that is to be adopted, nor is the hearing officer' s recommendation attached to the
judgment. Moreover, the parties contend in response to this court' s rule to show
cause order that there never was a hearing officer recommendation issued in this
6
matter, and the hearing that resulted in the April 1, 2022 judgment was actually a
review of the interim order of support contained in the March 1, 2021 consent
judgment. The judgment before us is so lacking in detail that the relief granted
simply cannot be determined from the judgment. Accordingly, the April 1, 2022
judgment is not a proper judgment.
We recognize that this Court has discretion to convert an appeal of a non -
appealable judgment to an application for supervisory writs. Simon v. Ferguson,
2018- 0826, p. 4 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 212$ 119), 274 So. 3d 10, 14. However, an appellate
court will generally refrain from the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction when
an adequate remedy exists by appeal, particularly when an adequate remedy by
appeal will exist upon the entry of the requisite precise, definite, and certain
decretal language necessary for appellate review. Simon, 2018- 0826 at p. 5, 274
So. 3d at 14. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to convert this
appeal of a defective judgment to an application for supervisory writs. See Carter,
2021- 1173 at p. 5, 342 So. 3d at 395.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the appeal of the April 1, 2022 judgment is
dismissed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to appellant, Tamara Kirkland.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
7