STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 21-CA-243
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY J. MAZIQUE COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 47,820, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
January 26, 2022
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
AFFIRMED SJW SMC JJM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES Honorable Bridget A. Dinvaut Kim Ancona Laborde
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, TIMOTHY J. MAZIQUE In Proper Person WINDHORST, J.
Appellant, Timothy J. Mazique, seeks review of the trial court’s September
24, 2020 judgment making child support arrearages in the amount of $70,875.000
executory. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant and Helena Schnyder have one child together. On May 12, 2004,
appellant and Ms. Schnyder, the custodial parent, entered into a consent judgment
wherein appellant was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $525.00 per
month.1 On December 9, 2004, the parties entered into another consent judgment,
wherein appellant was again ordered to pay child support in the amount of $525.00
per month, retroactive to December 1, 2004.2
In 2009, after a jury trial, appellant was sentenced to a term of ten years
imprisonment. Appellant was released from incarceration on January 1, 2019.
In June of 2020, Ms. Schnyder requested appellee, the State of Louisiana, on
behalf of the Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”), to collect and
enforce the child support judgment. On June 26, 2020, Ms. Schnyder submitted an
affidavit of arrearages attesting to appellant’s failure to comply with the child
support judgment and the amount of arrears as of the date of the affidavit. On August
3, 2020, DCFS filed an order, as the new payee of the child support order. DCFS
also filed a rule to show cause seeking to make arrears in the amount of $70,350.00
executory, obtain medical support, a modification of appellant’s current child
support obligation, and an income assignment. On September 24, 2020, after an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court made executory arrears in the amount of
$70,875.00 3 and ordered an income assignment. The trial court stated it was making
1 The written consent judgment was signed over a year later on August 12, 2005.
2 The written consent judgment was signed on January 19, 2005.
3 The trial court considered evidence of arrears subsequent to the filing of the rule, as prayed for in the rule, and those arrears were included in the judgment.
21-CA-243 1 the arrears executory “[e]ven though it’s attributable to a time when [appellant] was
incarcerated.” The trial court further reduced appellant’s child support obligation,
ordering appellant to pay $181.79 per month in child support and $20.00 per month
for medical support.
Appellant filed the instant appeal.
LAW and ANALYSIS
In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in
making arrears in the amount of $70,875.00 executory. He contends that under La.
R.S. 9:311.1, he is entitled to “forgiveness” of his child support obligation during
the period of his incarceration.
La. R.S. 9:311.1 provides for the suspension of a child support order when the
obligor is incarcerated for or sentenced to 180 consecutive days or more. This
provision of substantive law was enacted by Act 264 of the 2017 regular session of
the legislature. Section 7 of the act provided for an effective date of January 1, 2019.
However, prior to the act taking effect, on May 11, 2018 the legislature by Act 136
of the 2018 regular session amended and delayed the previous effective date of the
new La. R.S. 9:311.1 to August 1, 2019. Yet again, on June 11, 2019 the legislature
by Act 277 of the 1019 regular session amended and delayed the previous effective
date of La. R.S. 9:311.1 from August 1, 2019 to August 1, 2020. 4 Thus, when
appellant was released from incarceration on January 1, 2019, the earliest enactment
of La. R.S. 9:311.1 (on which appellant relies) had not taken effect.
Considering the retroactivity of laws, Louisiana C.C. art. 6 provides: Art. 6. Retroactivity of laws In the absence of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only. Procedural and interpretative laws apply both prospectively and retroactively, unless there is a legislative expression to the contrary. [Emphasis added.] Acts 1987, No. 124, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988.
4 Both parties in briefs mistakenly state that La. R.S. 9:311.1 was effective January 1, 2019.
21-CA-243 2 Likewise, La. R.S. 1: 2 provides: §2. Revised Statutes not retroactive No Section of the Revised Statutes is retroactive unless it is expressly so stated. [Emphasis added.]
The original enactment of La. R.S. 9:311.1 (effective August 1, 2020 to July 31,
2021) provided for suspension of a child support order “when the obligor will be or
is incarcerated for any period of one hundred eighty consecutive days or more,” with
exceptions. La. R.S. 9:311.1 is clearly substantive law, and accordingly, its
application is prospective only. It cannot be applied retroactively to cases in which
fewer than 180 consecutive days were served after and including August 1, 2020.5
Appellant was released from prison January 1, 2019. Since appellant was not
incarcerated on the effective date of La. R.S. 9:311.1, the suspension of the child
support orders as provided therein is not applicable in the present case. The trial
court did not err in finding that appellant was not entitled to relief under La. R.S.
9:311.1.
Further, upon being released from prison, appellant did not pay any child
support payments, nor did he seek a modification of the child support order.
Appellant only requested a modification of his child support obligation once he
received notice in June of 2020 that DCFS was the new payee. DCFS, in its rule to
show cause why arrears should not be made executory, requested on behalf of the
appellant that the trial court modify appellant’s child support obligation. At the
hearing, the trial court found appellant was entitled to a modification and granted the
same, retroactive to the date of judicial demand.6 Appellant has not appealed the
5 Effective August 1, 2021, La. R.S. 9:311.1 A was amended to provide for suspension of support payments “when the obligor will be is incarcerated for, or is sentenced to” 180 consecutive days or more. This enactment likewise is not retroactive, and applies prospectively as the previous provisions for the same reasons. Accordingly, the most recent act does not afford appellant the relief he seeks. 6 Generally, modification of child support awards are retroactive to the date of judicial demand, except for good cause shown. La. R.S. 9:315.21; See also, Department of Children & Family Services v. Alexander, 16-387 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/16), 228 So.3d 1261, 1267; Barton v. Barton, 06-2032 (La. App. 1 Cir. 08/08/07), 965 So.2d 939, 943; Casey v. Casey, 02-246 (La. App. 4 Cir. 05/22/02), 819 So.2d 1108, 1111. There is no authority for modifying a child support award retroactive to a date prior to judicial demand. La. R.S. 9:315.21; See also, Casey, 819 So.2d at 1111.
21-CA-243 3 trial court’s modification of the child support order, retroactive to the date of judicial
demand.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 21-CA-243
VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT
TIMOTHY J. MAZIQUE COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF LOUISIANA
ON APPEAL FROM THE FORTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 47,820, DIVISION "C" HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY, JUDGE PRESIDING
January 26, 2022
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST JUDGE
Panel composed of Judges Susan M. Chehardy, Stephen J. Windhorst, and John J. Molaison, Jr.
AFFIRMED SJW SMC JJM COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES Honorable Bridget A. Dinvaut Kim Ancona Laborde
DEFENDANT/APPELLANT, TIMOTHY J. MAZIQUE In Proper Person WINDHORST, J.
Appellant, Timothy J. Mazique, seeks review of the trial court’s September
24, 2020 judgment making child support arrearages in the amount of $70,875.000
executory. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS and PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Appellant and Helena Schnyder have one child together. On May 12, 2004,
appellant and Ms. Schnyder, the custodial parent, entered into a consent judgment
wherein appellant was ordered to pay child support in the amount of $525.00 per
month.1 On December 9, 2004, the parties entered into another consent judgment,
wherein appellant was again ordered to pay child support in the amount of $525.00
per month, retroactive to December 1, 2004.2
In 2009, after a jury trial, appellant was sentenced to a term of ten years
imprisonment. Appellant was released from incarceration on January 1, 2019.
In June of 2020, Ms. Schnyder requested appellee, the State of Louisiana, on
behalf of the Department of Children and Family Services (“DCFS”), to collect and
enforce the child support judgment. On June 26, 2020, Ms. Schnyder submitted an
affidavit of arrearages attesting to appellant’s failure to comply with the child
support judgment and the amount of arrears as of the date of the affidavit. On August
3, 2020, DCFS filed an order, as the new payee of the child support order. DCFS
also filed a rule to show cause seeking to make arrears in the amount of $70,350.00
executory, obtain medical support, a modification of appellant’s current child
support obligation, and an income assignment. On September 24, 2020, after an
evidentiary hearing, the trial court made executory arrears in the amount of
$70,875.00 3 and ordered an income assignment. The trial court stated it was making
1 The written consent judgment was signed over a year later on August 12, 2005.
2 The written consent judgment was signed on January 19, 2005.
3 The trial court considered evidence of arrears subsequent to the filing of the rule, as prayed for in the rule, and those arrears were included in the judgment.
21-CA-243 1 the arrears executory “[e]ven though it’s attributable to a time when [appellant] was
incarcerated.” The trial court further reduced appellant’s child support obligation,
ordering appellant to pay $181.79 per month in child support and $20.00 per month
for medical support.
Appellant filed the instant appeal.
LAW and ANALYSIS
In his sole assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in
making arrears in the amount of $70,875.00 executory. He contends that under La.
R.S. 9:311.1, he is entitled to “forgiveness” of his child support obligation during
the period of his incarceration.
La. R.S. 9:311.1 provides for the suspension of a child support order when the
obligor is incarcerated for or sentenced to 180 consecutive days or more. This
provision of substantive law was enacted by Act 264 of the 2017 regular session of
the legislature. Section 7 of the act provided for an effective date of January 1, 2019.
However, prior to the act taking effect, on May 11, 2018 the legislature by Act 136
of the 2018 regular session amended and delayed the previous effective date of the
new La. R.S. 9:311.1 to August 1, 2019. Yet again, on June 11, 2019 the legislature
by Act 277 of the 1019 regular session amended and delayed the previous effective
date of La. R.S. 9:311.1 from August 1, 2019 to August 1, 2020. 4 Thus, when
appellant was released from incarceration on January 1, 2019, the earliest enactment
of La. R.S. 9:311.1 (on which appellant relies) had not taken effect.
Considering the retroactivity of laws, Louisiana C.C. art. 6 provides: Art. 6. Retroactivity of laws In the absence of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only. Procedural and interpretative laws apply both prospectively and retroactively, unless there is a legislative expression to the contrary. [Emphasis added.] Acts 1987, No. 124, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1988.
4 Both parties in briefs mistakenly state that La. R.S. 9:311.1 was effective January 1, 2019.
21-CA-243 2 Likewise, La. R.S. 1: 2 provides: §2. Revised Statutes not retroactive No Section of the Revised Statutes is retroactive unless it is expressly so stated. [Emphasis added.]
The original enactment of La. R.S. 9:311.1 (effective August 1, 2020 to July 31,
2021) provided for suspension of a child support order “when the obligor will be or
is incarcerated for any period of one hundred eighty consecutive days or more,” with
exceptions. La. R.S. 9:311.1 is clearly substantive law, and accordingly, its
application is prospective only. It cannot be applied retroactively to cases in which
fewer than 180 consecutive days were served after and including August 1, 2020.5
Appellant was released from prison January 1, 2019. Since appellant was not
incarcerated on the effective date of La. R.S. 9:311.1, the suspension of the child
support orders as provided therein is not applicable in the present case. The trial
court did not err in finding that appellant was not entitled to relief under La. R.S.
9:311.1.
Further, upon being released from prison, appellant did not pay any child
support payments, nor did he seek a modification of the child support order.
Appellant only requested a modification of his child support obligation once he
received notice in June of 2020 that DCFS was the new payee. DCFS, in its rule to
show cause why arrears should not be made executory, requested on behalf of the
appellant that the trial court modify appellant’s child support obligation. At the
hearing, the trial court found appellant was entitled to a modification and granted the
same, retroactive to the date of judicial demand.6 Appellant has not appealed the
5 Effective August 1, 2021, La. R.S. 9:311.1 A was amended to provide for suspension of support payments “when the obligor will be is incarcerated for, or is sentenced to” 180 consecutive days or more. This enactment likewise is not retroactive, and applies prospectively as the previous provisions for the same reasons. Accordingly, the most recent act does not afford appellant the relief he seeks. 6 Generally, modification of child support awards are retroactive to the date of judicial demand, except for good cause shown. La. R.S. 9:315.21; See also, Department of Children & Family Services v. Alexander, 16-387 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/28/16), 228 So.3d 1261, 1267; Barton v. Barton, 06-2032 (La. App. 1 Cir. 08/08/07), 965 So.2d 939, 943; Casey v. Casey, 02-246 (La. App. 4 Cir. 05/22/02), 819 So.2d 1108, 1111. There is no authority for modifying a child support award retroactive to a date prior to judicial demand. La. R.S. 9:315.21; See also, Casey, 819 So.2d at 1111.
21-CA-243 3 trial court’s modification of the child support order, retroactive to the date of judicial
demand.
After a contradictory hearing, based on testimony and evidence the trial court
determined that appellant failed to pay child support from June 2009 to the hearing
date, September 2020, and made executory child support arrearages in the amount
of $70,875.00. La. C.C.P. art. 3946. Upon review, the judgment is supported by the
record and we find the trial court did not err in making arrears executory.
DECREE
For the reasons stated above, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
21-CA-243 4 SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL
CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT
NANCY F. VEGA FREDERICKA H. WICKER CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK JUDE G. GRAVOIS MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON SUSAN S. 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 26, 2022 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:
21-CA-243 E-NOTIFIED 40TH DISTRICT COURT (CLERK) HONORABLE J. STERLING SNOWDY (DISTRICT JUDGE) HONORABLE BRIDGET A. DINVAUT KIM ANCONA LABORDE (APPELLEE) (APPELLEE)
MAILED TIMOTHY J. MAZIQUE (APPELLANT) HELENA SCHNYDER (APPELLEE) 2124 PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE 8767 SUNNYSIDE DRIVE LAPLACE, LA 70068 LAPALCE, LA 70068