Shannon Michelle Shepherd Hord v. Matthew Garrett Hord ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                 STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST CIRCUIT
    2019 CA 0704
    SHANNON MICHELLE SHEPHERD HORD
    Illyr5-  1
    VERSUS
    MATTHEW GARRETT HORD
    JUDGMENT RENDERED:        FEB 2 12020
    Appealed from the
    Twenty -Second Judicial District Court
    In and for the Parish of St. Tammany • State of Louisiana
    Docket Number 2006- 14439 • Division K
    The Honorable Mary Devereaux, Judge Presiding
    Richard Ducote                                         ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
    Covington, Louisiana                                   PLAINTIFF— Shannon Michelle
    Shepherd Hord
    Kristen Stanley -Wallace                               ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Amber Sheppard                                         DEFENDANT— Matthew Garrett
    Slidell, Louisiana                                     Hord
    BEFORE: MCCLENDON, WELCH, AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
    WELCH, J.
    In this child custody dispute, Shannon Michelle Shepherd ( formerly " Hord")
    appeals a trial court judgment ordering her to reimburse Matthew G. Hord for the
    attorney fees and costs associated with her failure to submit an accurate judgment
    reflecting a stipulation entered into in open court on March 7, 2018.       We reverse
    the judgment of the trial court and issue this memorandum opinion in compliance
    with Uniform Rules— Courts of Appeal, Rule 2- 16. 2.
    Ms.   Shepherd    and   Mr.    Hord were previously married.        During their
    marriage, the parties had one child, M.L.H.       During the pendency of the divorce
    proceedings and thereafter, M.L.H. has been the subject of child custody litigation.
    On March 7,    2018, the parties were before the trial court for a hearing on Ms.
    Shepherd' s objection to a hearing officer recommendation. At the hearing, the
    parties eventually entered into a stipulation on the record wherein they specifically
    agreed that M.L.H. would undergo a psychological evaluation by Dr. Allen James
    Klein; however, should Dr. Klein not be available or unable to take the case, the
    parties agreed that M.L.H. would be evaluated by Dr. Kristen Luscher.          Counsel
    for Ms. Shepherd then volunteered to " submit the order for Dr. Klein."
    Counsel for Ms. Shepherd prepared an order providing for the appointment
    of Dr. Klein; however, the proposed order did not provide for the alternative
    appointment of Dr. Luscher. Counsel for Mr. Hord objected to the proposed order
    because it did not provide for the alternative appointment of Dr. Luscher.          The
    proposed order was submitted to the trial court,         along with a certification by
    counsel for Ms. Shepherd that counsel for Mr. Hord objected to the order because
    it did not include the language concerning the alternative appointment of Dr.
    Luscher.    Counsel    for Mr.     Hord then prepared an order providing for the
    appointment of Dr. Klein and the alternative appointment of Dr. Luscher and
    submitted it to the trial court.   Mr. Hord also filed a motion for attorney' s fees and
    2
    costs, claiming that as a result of counsel for Ms. Shepherd' s refusal to submit a
    judgment or order that accurately reflected the stipulation of the parties, he
    incurred increased attorney' s fees and costs related to: communications between
    his counsel, counsel for Ms. Shepherd, and the court; ordering the transcript from
    the March 7, 2018 hearing; drafting and filing of the correct judgment; and drafting
    and filing the motion for attorney' s fees and costs.            Therefore, Mr. Hord sought an
    award of attorney' s fees and costs associated with counsel for Ms. Shepherd' s
    failure to submit an accurate judgment from the March 7, 2018 hearing.
    The trial court ultimately signed the order prepared by counsel for Mr. Hord
    on April 9, 2018, and specifically declined to sign the order prepared by counsel
    for Ms. Shepherd.        In addition, after a hearing on July 11,            2018, the trial court
    signed a judgment on August 22, 2018, ordering Ms. Shepherd to reimburse Mr.
    Hord attorney' s fees and costs in the amount of $1, 921. 96, which were associated
    with   Ms.    Shepherd' s failure to submit an accurate judgment reflecting the
    stipulation entered into the record in open court on March 7, 2018.                       From this
    August 22, 2018 judgment, Ms. Shepherd has appealed, arguing that there was no
    factual or legal basis upon which to award attorney' s fees and costs.'               We agree.
    Under     Louisiana     law,    attorney' s    fees     are   not   allowed   except   where
    authorized by statute or by contract. Dipaola v. Municipal Police Employees
    Retirement System, 2014- 0037 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 9/ 25/ 14), 
    155 So. 3d 49
    , 52, writ
    denied,    2014- 2572 ( La.      2/ 27/ 15),   
    159 So. 3d 1071
    .      Furthermore,   a   statute
    providing for an award of attorney' s fees is penal in nature and must be strictly
    construed.    Molinere v. Lapeyrouse, 2016- 0991 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 2/ 17/ 17), 214
    The August 22, 2018 judgment was captioned as an " Order" and Ms. Shepherd initially filed an
    application for supervisory writs with this Court with regard to this order. However, since this
    Court determined that the August 22, 2018 order was a final, appealable judgment in accordance
    with La. C. C. P. art. 1915( A)(6), this Court granted the writ application for the limited purpose of
    remanding the case to the trial court with instructions to grant Ms. Shepherd an appeal pursuant
    to the pleading that notified the trial court of her intention to seek writs. Shannon Michelle
    Shepherd v. Matthew G. Hord, 2018- 1344 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 1/ 10/ 19) (             unpublished   writ
    action).
    
    9 So. 3d 887
    , 896.    Herein, there is no dispute that there is no contractual agreement
    for attorney' s fees. Thus, any award of attorney' s fees must have been based on a
    specific statute providing for such an award.
    Under the facts and circumstances of this case, we have not found, nor have
    we been directed to any provision of law authorizing an award of attorney' s fees
    and costs with regard to the submission of a stipulated judgment. While Mr. Hord
    maintains that the award of attorney fees was proper pursuant to La. C. C. P. art.
    863,   we note that by its terms, La. C. C. P. art. 8632 applies to the signing or
    2 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 863 provides:
    A. Every pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least
    one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. A
    party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading and state his
    address.
    B. Pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit or certificate,
    except as otherwise provided by law, but the signature of an attorney or party
    shall constitute a certification by him that he has read the pleading, and that to the
    best of his knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, he
    certifies all of the following:
    1) The pleading is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to
    harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation.
    2) Each claim, defense, or other legal assertion in the pleading is warranted by
    existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
    reversal of existing law.
    3) Each allegation or other factual assertion in the pleading has evidentiary
    support or, for a specifically identified allegation or factual assertion, is likely to
    have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or
    discovery.
    4) Each denial in the pleading of a factual assertion is warranted by the evidence
    or,  for a specifically identified denial, is reasonably based on a lack of
    information or belief.
    C. If a pleading is not signed, it shall be stricken unless promptly signed after the
    omission is called to the attention of the pleader.
    D. If, upon motion of any party or upon its own motion, the court determines that
    a certification has been made in violation of the provisions of this Article, the
    court shall impose upon the person who made the certification or the represented
    party, or both, an appropriate sanction which may include an order to pay to the
    other party the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the filing
    of the pleading, including reasonable attorney fees.
    E. A sanction authorized in Paragraph D shall be imposed only after a hearing at
    which any party or his counsel may present any evidence or argument relevant to
    the issue of imposition of the sanction.
    certification of " pleadings"        and the sanction for the violation thereof. In a civil
    case,     pleadings "   shall   consist   of   petitions,   exceptions,     written   motions,     and
    answers."      La. C. C. P. art. 852.     Applying the rule of strict construction applicable
    to sanctions under La. C. C. P. art. 863, we find that the submission of a proposed
    judgment to the trial court— stipulated or otherwise— is not a " pleading" to which
    La. C. C. P. art. 863 is applicable.         As such, we must conclude that the trial court
    had no statutory basis ( or contract) upon which to base an award of attorney' s fees
    and costs.3       Therefore, we reverse the August 22, 2018 judgment of the trial court.
    CONCLUSION
    For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the August 22, 2018 judgment of
    the trial court is reversed.         All costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellee,
    Matthew M. Hord.
    REVERSED.
    F. A sanction authorized in Paragraph D shall not be imposed with respect to an
    original petition which is filed within sixty days of an applicable prescriptive date
    and then voluntarily dismissed within ninety days after its filing or on the date of
    a hearing on the pleading, whichever is earlier.
    G. If the court imposes a sanction, it shall describe the conduct determined to
    constitute a violation of the provisions of this Article and explain the basis for the
    sanction imposed.
    3 From the record, it is apparent that counsel for Mr. Hord and the trial court are frustrated with
    this case and perhaps counsel for Ms. Shepherd. We further recognize that any act or omission
    tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the dignity
    of the court or respect for its authority may constitute a contempt of court— either direct or
    constructive—     and may be punishable in accordance with law. See La. C. C. P. arts. 221- 227; La.
    R. S. 13: 4611.    However, since the procedures set forth by law with regard to contempt were not
    followed in this case ( i.e., La. C. C. P. arts. 223 and 225), we decline to address whether La.
    C. C. P. arts. 221- 227 provided the legal basis upon which to award the attorney' s fees and costs
    herein.
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2019CA0704

Filed Date: 2/21/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024