State of Louisiana, Department of Children and Family Services in the Interest of E. R. and O. R. Versus Kirk Redmann

STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF NO. 19-CA-146
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES IN THE
INTEREST OF E. R. AND O. R. FIFTH CIRCUIT
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
KIRK REDMANN STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON PARISH JUVENILE COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF LOUISIANA
NO. 06-NS-49, DIVISION "C"
HONORABLE BARRON C. BURMASTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
January 22, 2020
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy,
Jude G. Gravois, Stephen J. Windhorst, Hans J. Liljeberg, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
REVERSED IN PART;
AMENDED IN PART;
RENDERED
JJM
SMC
SJW
HJL
DISSENTS WITH REASONS
JGG
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT,
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES IN THE INTEREST OF E. R. AND O. R.
Honorable Paul D. Connick, Jr.
Timothy P. O'Rourke
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE,
KIRK REDMANN
Michael A. Rosenblatt
MOLAISON, J.
In this case, the State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services, through
the Jefferson Parish District Attorney appeals the juvenile court judgment finding
that Kirk Redmann has a credit of $6,216.14 and that a penalty provision in the
2002 consent judgment between Kirk Redmann and Helen Meyer Redmann is no
longer in effect. For the following reasons, we reverse in part, amend in part, and
render.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This is the second appeal to this Court by these parties, Helen Meyer
Redmann (“Helen”) and Kirk Redmann (“Kirk”).1 According to the record before
us, the parties agreed on a support award by Kirk in favor of Helen in which Kirk
would pay 54% of specified expenses of the children, including premiums for their
health insurance coverage.2 3
On January 12, 2006, the State of Louisiana, Department of Child and
Family Services, through the District Attorney for the Parish of Jefferson
(“DCFS”), began providing child support enforcement services to Helen at her
request. At that point in 2006, jurisdiction over enforcement of the child support
award was transferred from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court to the
Jefferson Parish Juvenile Court.
Subsequently, on April 1, 2015, Kirk filed a motion seeking, among other
things, a credit against Helen for her proportionate share of premiums for the
1
For the first appeal, see State, Dep’t of Children and Family Services v. Redmann, 17-50 (La. App. 5
Cir. 10/25/17), 231 So.3d 897.
2
The law is clear that evidence not properly and officially offered and introduced cannot be considered,
even if it is physically placed in the record. Denoux v. Vessel Mgmt. Services, Inc., 07-2143 (La.
5/21/08), 983 So.2d 84, 88; Holley v. Holley, 17-325 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/20/17), 232 So.3d 717, 727-28.
Although a document entitled “Consent Judgment” is located in this record, it was not properly offered
and accepted by the trial judge into evidence at a hearing, and thus, it is not part of the record before this
Court on appeal.
3
According to the record, by April 6, 2018, the parties’ children have both been emancipated and no
longer rely upon their parents for financial support.
19-CA-146 1
children’s health insurance coverage. In his motion, Kirk maintained that he had
paid 100% of the children’s health insurance premiums from September of 2007
through May 30, 2015, and pursuant to the original consent judgment, Helen owed
him a credit of 46% of the children’s health insurance premiums for that time
period.4 After four hearings, the trial judge found that “Kirk’s share of the
expenses owed was $1,345, minus a $250 credit for each child, resulting in $845
owed to Helen.” State, Dep’t of Children and Family Services v. Redmann, 231
So.3d at 900. However, upon review, this Court found that, “[b]ased on the record
before us, it is unclear what documents, if any, were actually admitted into
evidence. Thus, it is impossible for us to ascertain from the record before us how
the trial court reached its determination that Kirk owed Helen $1,345 and for what.
Accordingly, we find it necessary to vacate that portion of the December 28, 2015
judgment and remand the matter for a new hearing.” Id. at 902.
On remand from this Court, the parties appeared for an April 6, 2018 hearing
on Kirk’s claim for reimbursement against Helen for health insurance premiums.
At that hearing, Kirk testified that his children were covered on his second ex-wife
Terri Redmann’s health insurance policy from September of 2007 through
November of 2010.5 He introduced an email from Terri stating that the cost of his
children’s health insurance coverage was $165.00 per month. Kirk testified that he
paid his “then spouse” Terri $165.00 per month from September of 2007 until
September of 2010 for the premiums on his children’s health insurance coverage.
He also introduced fifteen cancelled checks to substantiate those payments.
At trial, DCFS objected to Kirk’s documentation. In particular, DCFS
questioned Kirk regarding the “actual breakdown of the cost of insurance” from
4
At trial on April 6, 2018, the parties stipulated that, pursuant to the 2002 consent judgment, Helen was
responsible for 46% of the children’s specified expenses.
5
Kirk admitted that he was also covered under Terri’s medical insurance policy at the time. The cost of
Kirk’s coverage under Terri’s medical insurance policy was not included in the $165.00 per month
payments made by Kirk to Terri at issue herein.
19-CA-146 2
the insurance provider, which Kirk admitted that he did not know. Kirk also
admitted that he did not have documentation from the insurance provider of the
actual cost of his children’s health insurance premiums from September of 2007
through November of 2010.6
At the close of the hearing, with respect to premiums for the children’s
health insurance coverage paid by Kirk from September of 2007 through
November of 2010, the trial judge found as follows:
Okay. So that’s the end of what he needs to be reimbursed for.
Okay. With regard to Mr. Redmann’s claims, for the 165 a month for
four months in 2007 through the 2010 which went through, I believe,
September of 2010 because then it went up higher in October and
November, the 165 a month, I am going to find that he did pay that
insurance amount. He wrote checks to his ex-wife for that amount.
There’s some question about whether it should have been $30 a month
or 165 a month, to me that comes down to whether Terri Redmann
was overcharging him. That might be a fraud issue, but that doesn’t –
he paid it. I believe he paid it. I believe he paid it thinking it was for
the children’s insurance. If they somehow got ripped off, they both
have a claim against Ms. Redmann at that point. But I do believe that
the 165 a month should be the amount for those months. And then the
last two months, October and November, he did pay the 232.50. I
think his check stubs and what he did and his testimony is, indeed,
that he did pay those amounts.
On appeal, DCFS raises three assignments of errors: first, as a matter of law,
the trial court erred in interpreting insurance costs to mean the amounts the non-
custodial parent paid to his “then spouse” Terri Redmann who maintained a health
insurance policy through her employer, rather than the actual cost to the insured of
the health insurance premiums for the minor children; second, the trial court erred
in admitting and considering Terri’s email to Kirk alleging the unsubstantiated cost
of medical insurance over the objections of DCFS and Helen when Terri was not
present to be cross-examined; and third, the trial court erred in refusing to consider
6
At the hearing, Kirk also testified regarding his payment of his children’s health insurance premiums
from December of 2010 through May 30, 2015. He testified that his children’s health insurance
premiums were directly deducted from his paychecks during that time. He produced paycheck stubs
evidencing deductions totaling $14,063.76. When questioned, Kirk testified that his employer paid his
health insurance premium as a benefit of his employment so his payments were 100% for his children’s
health insurance premiums. DCFS did not object to this evidence. Kirk’s payment of his children’s
health insurance premiums from December of 2010 through May 30, 2015 are not at issue herein.
19-CA-146 3
the custodial parent’s claim for penalties for delinquent payments as outlined in an
August 26, 2003 consent judgment.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Standard of Review
In Evans v. Lungrin, 97-0541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, 735, the
Louisiana Supreme Court enunciated the standard of review in custody
proceedings:
It is well-settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court’s
… finding of fact in the absence of ‘manifest error’ or unless it is
‘clearly wrong.’ Rosell v. Esco, 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989).
However, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-
finding process, the manifest error standard is no longer applicable,
and, if the record is otherwise complete, the appellate court should
make its own independent de novo review of the record and determine
a preponderance of the evidence. Ferrell v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co.,
94-1252 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 742, 747, rev’d in part, on other
grounds, 96-3028 (La. 7/1/97); 696 So. 2d 569, reh’g denied, 96-3028
(La. 9/19/97), 698 So.2d 1388. A legal error occurs when a trial court
applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are
prejudicial. See Lasha v. Olin Corp., 625 So.2d 1002, 1006 (La.
1993). Legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the
outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights. See Lasha, 625
So.2d at 1006. When such a prejudicial error of law skews the trial
court’s finding of a material issue of fact and causes it to pretermit
other issues, the appellate court is required, if it can, to render
judgment on the record by applying the correct law and determining
the essential material facts de novo. Lasha, 625 So.2d at 1006.
Thus, where one or more trial court legal errors interdict the fact-finding process,
this Court should make its own independent de novo review of the record and
determine a preponderance of the evidence. Evans, supra. Because our review of
this record reveals that the trial court committed legal error, we have made our own
de novo review of the record.
Reimbursement
In their first and second assignments of error, DCFS argues that the trial
court erred in giving Kirk a credit of $6,216.14 because the trial judge relied on an
19-CA-146 4
erroneous interpretation of the legal definition of “health insurance premium” as
defined in La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4). We agree.
First, the question is whether Kirk can seek reimbursement. According to
La. R.S. 9:315.8(D), “The party without legal custody or nondomiciliary party
shall owe his or her total child support obligation as a money judgment of child
support to the custodial or domiciliary party, minus any court-ordered direct
payments made on behalf of the child for work-related net child care costs, health
insurance premiums, extraordinary medical expenses, or extraordinary expenses
provided as adjustments to the schedule.” Accordingly, Kirk might be entitled to a
credit for the cost of health insurance premiums incurred on behalf of his minor
children. See Durfee v. Durfee, 44,281 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/13/09), 12 So.3d 984,
990.
Finding that Kirk is a party that could be entitled to reimbursement, we look
next to whether he supported his claim. Pursuant to the provisions of La. R.S.
9:315(C)(4), which provides the definitions for the child support guideline statutes:
‘Health insurance premiums’ means the actual amount paid by a party
for providing health insurance on behalf of the child. It does not
include any amount paid by an employer or any amounts paid for
coverage of any other persons. If more than one dependent is covered
by health insurance which is paid through a lump-sum dependent-
coverage premium, and not all of such dependents are the subject of
the guidelines calculation, the cost of the coverage shall be prorated
among the dependents covered before being applied to the guidelines.
(Emphasis added.)
Words and phrases must be read with their context and construed according
to the common and approved usage of the language. La. R.S. 1:3. The
interpretation of any statutory provision starts with the language of the statute
itself. In re Succession of Faget, 10-188 (La. 11/30/10), 53 So.3d 414, 420. When
the provision is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd
consequences, its language must be given effect, and its provisions must be
construed so as to give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair interpretation of the
19-CA-146 5
language used. La. C.C. art. 9; La. R.S. 1:4; In re Clegg, 10-323 (La. 7/6/10), 41
So.3d 1141, 1154. Words of art and technical terms must be given their technical
meaning when the law involves a technical matter. La. C.C. art. 11.
Here, Kirk testified that he paid his second ex-wife for insurance coverage
for his minor children from September 2007 until November 2010. Kirk provided
an email7 from his second ex-wife, in which she advised him that the children’s
medical insurance cost $165.00 per month. Kirk did not call his second ex-wife to
verify that amount. Kirk did not provide any documentation from his second ex-
wife’s insurance provider of the breakdown of that cost.
In State v. Reed,8 Dr. Reed, who was being pursued in two separate child
support matters regarding seven minor children, argued that the court erred in
failing to give him credit for health insurance premiums of $501.00 per month he
paid for four other minor children not the subject of the support orders. Our
brethren on the Second Circuit held, however, that “there is no evidence before us
which demonstrates a break-down of the amounts paid to the insurance company
for Reed, his present wife, or his four children of this marriage, [so] Reed has
failed to demonstrate his entitlement to the claimed credit.”
In the instant case, the trial judge determined at the December 10, 2019
hearing that the total amount of expenses at issue for the children was $20,146.36.
While we affirm the determination that Kirk was entitled to reimbursement, we
find that Kirk did not prove “the actual amount paid by a party for providing health
insurance on behalf of the children” as defined in La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4). Because
Kirk did not prove the actual amount that he, as the party, paid for health insurance
7
Here, this email is hearsay. “Hearsay” is defined as “a statement, other than one made by the declarant
while testifying at the present trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter
asserted.” La. C.E. art. 801(C); Larios v. Martinez, 17-514 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18), 239 So.3d 1041,
1045. Hearsay is not admissible except as otherwise provided by this Code or other legislation. La. C.E.
art. 802.
8
26,896 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/21/95, 7-8), 658 So.2d 774, 778, abrogated on other grounds by Stogner v.
Stogner, 98-3044 (La. 7/7/99), 739 So.2d 762.
19-CA-146 6
for his children from September 2007 until November 2010, we find that the trial
judge erred in allowing a reimbursement credit of $6,570.00 for that time period.
Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the trial court’s judgment granting Kirk a
credit for $6,570.00, and amend the award to reduce the credit to $13,576.36 from
$20,146.36. Pursuant to the record before us, we also render the judgment, which
is $6,245.13, owed by Helen to Kirk for 46% of the health insurance premiums
paid from 2011 through 2015.9
Penalties
In their third assignment of error, DCFS argues that the trial judge erred in
refusing to consider the custodial parent’s claim for penalties for delinquent
payments as outlined in their consent judgment of August 26, 2003. We note,
however, that the 2003 Consent Judgment in question is not a part of the appellate
record before this Court. As we have cautioned the parties in this matter before in
this Court:
Evidence must be properly and officially introduced and accepted into
evidence during a hearing before being considered by the trial court in
deciding the merits of a case. See Touzet v. Mobley, 612 So.2d 890,
893 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1993), writ denied, 614 So.2d 1263 (La. 1993).
Courts of appeal are courts of trial record. This means, for purposes of
our review, the record consists of the testimony, exhibits and other
evidence introduced during trial. Lewis v. Borne, 625 So.2d 273,
275 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1993). (Emphasis in original.)
State, Dep’t of Children & Family Servs. v. Redmann, supra.
Because the judgment is not in the record before us, we cannot consider
whether the penalty portions of that judgment are still applicable to Kirk.
Accordingly, we pretermit any discussion of this assignment of error.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that determined
Kirk was entitled to reimbursement. We reverse the portion of trial court’s
9
At trial on April 6, 2018, the parties stipulated that, pursuant to the 2002 consent judgment, Helen was
46% responsible for the children’s expenses.
19-CA-146 7
judgment that gave Kirk a credit of $6,216.14, and amend the award to reduce
Kirk’s credit to $13,576.36 from the prior amount of $20,146.36. Pursuant to the
record before us, we also render judgment for $6,245.13, owed by Helen to Kirk
for 46% of the health insurance premiums paid from 2011 through 2015.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
REVERSED IN PART;
AMENDED IN PART;
RENDERED
19-CA-146 8
STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT NO. 19-CA-146
OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY
SERVICES IN THE INTEREST OF E. R. FIFTH CIRCUIT
AND O. R.
COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
STATE OF LOUISIANA
KIRK REDMANN
GRAVOIS, J., DISSENTS WITH REASONS
For the following reasons, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s
opinion to reverse the portion of trial court’s judgment that gave Kirk Redmann
a credit of $6,216.14, to amend the award to reduce Kirk’s credit to $13,576.36
from the prior amount of $20,146.36, and to render judgment for $6,245.13,
owed by Helen Redmann to Kirk for 46% of the health insurance premiums paid
from 2011 through 2015. Rather, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment in
full.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
Findings of fact will not be disturbed on appeal unless manifestly erroneous
or clearly wrong. Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La. 1989). “When
findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the
manifest error-clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact’s
findings; for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and
tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener’s understanding and belief in what
is said.” Id.; State, Dep’t of Soc. Servs. ex rel. D.F. v. L.T., 05-1965 (La. 7/6/06),
934 So.2d 687, 690.
19-CA-146 9
Reimbursement
In its first and second assignments of error, DCFS has not challenged the
formula used by the trial court in determining the ultimate amount of credit Kirk
would be entitled to receive. Rather, DCFS only questions whether the trial court
properly gave Kirk credit for payment of the premiums for the children’s health
insurance coverage in the amount of $165.00 per month (claiming instead that he
should have received a credit for said expense in the amount of only approximately
$30.00 per month). In particular, in these assignments, DCFS argues that the trial
court erred, as a matter of law, in giving Kirk a credit of $6,216.14 because the
court relied on an erroneous interpretation of the legal definition of “health
insurance premium” as defined in La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4). For the following reasons,
I respectfully disagree with DCFS’s arguments and the findings of the majority on
this issue.
Pursuant to the provisions of La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4), “health insurance
premiums” are defined as follows for purposes of the child support guideline
statutes:
“Health insurance premiums” means the actual amount paid by a
party for providing health insurance on behalf of the child. It does
not include any amount paid by an employer or any amounts paid for
coverage of any other persons. If more than one dependent is covered
by health insurance which is paid through a lump-sum dependent-
coverage premium, and not all of such dependents are the subject of
the guidelines calculation, the cost of the coverage shall be prorated
among the dependents covered before being applied to the guidelines.
(Emphasis added.)
Importantly, the method and nature of proof required to prove “the actual amount
paid by a party for providing health insurance on behalf of the child” is not
specifically provided for in this statute.
First, I agree with the majority’s finding that Kirk is considered “a party”
under La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4) who could be entitled to reimbursement, upon his
presenting adequate admissible proof thereof. I respectfully disagree, however,
19-CA-146 10
with the majority’s finding that Kirk did not submit sufficient proof of the actual
amount he paid for providing health insurance on behalf of his children.
The burden of proving a credit against a potential child support payment
arrearage is on the party asserting entitlement to the credit. Waites v. Waites, 17-
499 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/10/18), 256 So.3d 539, 547. See also Brouillette v. Nat’l
Remodelers & Rebuilders, Inc., 239 So.2d 375, 379 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1970)
(observing that “the burden of proving offsets claimed, an affirmative defense, is
upon the party asserting such offsets”). As found by the majority, there is no
question that Kirk bore the burden of asserting his entitlement to a credit.
However, the question of whether Kirk paid the health insurance premiums in
question is ultimately one of credibility. See Singleton v. Singleton, 423 So.2d
791, 794 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1982), writ denied, 427 So.2d 1210 (La. 1983).
At the hearing on his claim for reimbursement, Kirk testified that he paid
$165.00 per month to his then wife Terri as reimbursement to her for the amount
she indicated to him was the cost of his minor children’s health insurance coverage
from September of 2007 until November of 2010, and provided substantiation
thereof through copies of cancelled checks that were offered and accepted into
evidence. There is no dispute that Kirk and his then wife Terri actually provided
health insurance coverage for Kirk’s minor children from September of 2007
through November of 2010. After hearing both parties testify, the trial judge chose
to believe Kirk’s testimony on this issue. In my opinion, DCFS has not shown
either that there was either an error of law in the trial court’s finding on this issue,
or that the trial judge’s finding of fact was manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
Rosell v. ESCO, supra.
Although I agree with DCFS’s argument and the majority’s finding that the
email from Terri to Kirk was inadmissible hearsay (and correspondingly, the trial
court erred in admitting said email into evidence), in my opinion, Kirk presented
19-CA-146 11
adequate admissible evidence of his right to reimbursement for health insurance
premium payments made on behalf of his minor children, namely his testimony
and copies of cancelled checks, that was properly considered and deemed credible
by the trial court to prove that he paid the health insurance premiums in question.
The trial court was able to examine the documentation and hear Kirk testify.
Based on the record before us, in my opinion, the trial court did not abuse its broad
discretion in accepting Kirk’s evidence as proof of health insurance premium
payments made on behalf of his minor children. See Chauvin v. Chauvin, 46,365
(La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/11, 69 So.3d 1192, 1200. Moreover, as the trial court
possesses wide discretion in assessing the probative value of evidence, Id. at 1199,
I would find that the trial court’s admission of the email in question to be harmless
error.
Accordingly, in my opinion, these assignments of error asserted by DCFS
are without merit. I would accordingly affirm the trial court judgment under
review in full.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the trial court judgment under
review.
19-CA-146 12
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
MARY E. LEGNON
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN BUCHHOLZ
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
HANS J. LILJEBERG
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR. FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400
(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY
JANUARY 22, 2020 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES
NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
19-CA-146
E-NOTIFIED
JUVENILE COURT (CLERK)
HON. BARRON C. BURMASTER (DISTRICT JUDGE)
JODY J. FORTUNATO (APPELLANT) BERNADETTE R. LEE (APPELLEE) MICHAEL A. ROSENBLATT (APPELLEE)
TIMOTHY P. O'ROURKE (APPELLANT) SHEILA H. WILLIS (APPELLEE)
MAILED
EDITH H. MORRIS (APPELLEE) HONORABLE PAUL D. CONNICK, JR.
SUZANNE ECUYER BAYLE (APPELLEE) (APPELLANT)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW DISTRICT ATTORNEY
1515 POYDRAS STREET TWENTY-FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SUITE 1420 200 DERBIGNY STREET
NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112 GRETNA, LA 70053