Nalani Lynn Caldarera v. Stanley Joseph Caldarera

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 21, 2014
• Docket: CA-0014-0041
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-41

NALANI LYNN CALDARERA

VERSUS

STANLEY JOSEPH CALDARERA

************

APPEAL FROM THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF CALACASIEU, NO. 08-5600 HONORABLE ROBERT WYATT, JUDGE

J. DAVID PAINTER JUDGE

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy, and J. David Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Timothy O’Dowd 921 Ryan Street, Suite D Lake Charles, LA 70601 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: Stanley Joseph Caldarera

David Hanchey P. O. Box 2210 Lake Charles, LA 70602 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: Nalani Lynn Caldarera PAINTER, Judge.

Defendant, Stanley Caldarera, appeals the trial court‟s judgment denying his

rule to find Plaintiff, Nalani Caldarera, in contempt of court for an alleged

violation of a consent decree concerning child support.

FACTS

The parties were married in February 2002, in Calcasieu Parish where they

established their matrimonial domicile. They had one child, born in 2002. Plaintiff

filed a petition for divorce in October 2008, and a judgment of divorce was

rendered in March 2010. In January 2011, judgment was rendered on a joint

stipulation. On March 29, 2011, Defendant filed a rule for contempt of court

alleging that in violation of the judgment on the stipulation, Plaintiff claimed the

child as a dependent on her 2010 income tax return. He asked that Plaintiff be

ordered to amend her 2010 tax return so that Defendant could claim the child on

his 2010 tax return. Plaintiff also filed a rule for contempt asserting that Defendant

failed to pay child support during 2009, and that he claimed the child as a

deduction on his tax return in 2009, without authority and without notice. She cites

La.R.S 9:315.18 as authority for the proposition that a party in arrears is not

entitled to claim the child as a deduction. The trial court denied both motions for

contempt as well as a motion to consolidate which has not been appealed.

Defendant appeals the denial of his motion for contempt.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 221 defines contempt of court as “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. Contempts of court are of two kinds, direct and constructive[.]” Pursuant to La.Code Civ.P. art. 224(2), constructive contempt is “[w]ilful disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court.” Constructive contempt “must be based on a finding that the accused violated an order of the court „intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully, without 1 justifiable excuse.‟” Lang v. Asten, Inc., 05-1119, p. 1 (La.1/13/06), 918 So.2d 453, 454 (quoting Brunet v. Magnolia Quarterboats, Inc., 97-187, p. 10 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/11/98), 711 So.2d 308, 313, writ denied, 90-990 (La.5/29/98), 720 So.2d 343). “A trial court is vested with great discretion to determine whether a party should be held in contempt for willfully disobeying a trial court judgment.” Barnes v. Barnes, 07-27, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/07), 957 So.2d 251, 257 (citing Fink v. Bryant, 01-987 (La.11/28/01), 801 So.2d 346).

Garcia v. Garcia, 10-446, pp. 4-5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/3/10), 49 So.3d 601, 605,

(alterations in original) cited in Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux, 12-752 (La.App. 3 Cir.

12/5/12) 104 So.3d 768.

Review of the trial court‟s determination as to whether behavior rises to the

level of contempt is subject to a manifest error standard of review. McCorvey v.

McCorvey, 05-1173 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/5/06), 926 So.2d 114, writ denied, 06-959

(La. 6/16/06), 929 So.2d 1290.

In this case, the trial court concluded that neither party‟s behavior was such

as to constitute contempt of court. After reviewing the record, we cannot say that

the trial court abused its vast discretion by so ruling. Nor can we say that the ruling

was manifestly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

CONCLUSION

Finding no error in the trial court‟s denial of the motion for contempt, we

affirm the judgment of the trial court. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the

Defendant-Appellant, Stanley Joseph Caldarera.