Opinion
No. 2020-CJ-00338
07-31-2020
State of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES in the Interest of E. R. and O. R. v. Kirk REDMANN
PER CURIAM
Writ granted. Helen Meyer Redmann ("mother") and Kirk Redmann ("father") were parties to a consent judgment wherein they agreed on a support award in which the father would pay 54% of specified expenses of the children, including premiums for their health insurance coverage. The father subsequently filed a motion seeking, among other things, a credit against the mother for her proportionate share of premiums for the children's health insurance coverage, asserting he had paid 100% of the children's health insurance premiums for several years.
Relative to child support determinations, La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4) provides:
(4) "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)
The statute does not mandate a particular method or require a specific type of evidence to establish "the actual amount paid" for health insurance premiums. At the hearing in the district court, the father testified he paid his second former wife, Terri, $165 per month from September 2007 through November 2010 for the children's health insurance premiums. The father testified he relied on Terri's assertions that $165 was the cost of the children's premiums and he introduced canceled checks to substantiate those payments.
The district court found the father was entitled to reimbursement. While no direct evidence in the form of a detailed paystub or bill from the insurer was introduced to establish the actual amount of the premium paid by Terri for the children's insurance, the district court made a factual finding, based on its credibility determination of the father's testimony, that the father presented adequate evidence to establish he "actually paid" $165 per month for the children's insurance. The court of appeal found the father did not prove the actual amount he paid for health insurance for his children from September 2007 until November 2010, and thus held the district court erred in allowing a reimbursement credit. We disagree. 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." Evans v. Lungrin , 97-0541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So. 2d 731, 735 (citing Rosell v. ESCO , 549 So. 2d 840, 844 (La. 1989) ).Considering the particular facts of this case, we do not find the district court's ruling to be clearly wrong. The district court's factual finding is supported by the father's canceled checks. Furthermore, there is no dispute the children were covered through Terri's insurer. Therefore, we find no manifest error in the district court's finding that the father paid $165/month for the children's health insurance premiums from September 2007 until November 2010.
Thus, we reverse that portion of the ruling of the court of appeal which held the father was not entitled to a reimbursement credit, and we find the father is entitled to reimbursement equaling 46% of the health insurance premiums he paid from September 2007 until November 2010, as already determined by the district court.
WEIMER, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) introduced evidence in the form of insurance premium statements and benefits costs calculations from the State of Louisiana, Office of Group Benefits (OGB) health insurance program. According to DCFS, the $165 amount on which the district court's reimbursement credit is based is several times greater than the amount of the monthly premium attributed to the children of defendant Kirk Redmann as evidenced by the documentation introduced by DCFS. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315(C)(4) provides:
"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.]
While DCFS's evidence did not definitely establish the actual amount of the premium paid by the father's former spouse, Terri Redmann, to the OGB on behalf of the children, such evidence calls into question the $165 amount relied on by the father in reimbursing Terri. Moreover, since Terri was not called as a witness by the father (the party seeking a credit against his support obligation for payment of his children's health insurance premiums), DCFS was denied any opportunity to cross examine Terri regarding the accuracy of the $165 amount.
Given the limited proof presented by the father, I am unable to find error in the court of appeal's determination that the father failed to present sufficient evidence of the "actual amount" of the premiums paid for purposes of La. R.S. 9:315(C)(4). While the father may be sincere in his assertion that he paid Terri $165 a month in premium reimbursements for the children, even the district court acknowledged there was a possibility of fraud in this arrangement, either with or without the father's knowledge. The father could have established the "actual amount paid" as statutorily required by introducing evidence from OGB or calling Terri as a witness.
The opposition of DCFS indicates that Terri had a daughter that was also covered under her policy and that the addition of the father's children did not affect Terri's premium. If supported by the record, the father did not prove any cost for his children's health insurance.
CRAIN, J., dissenting.
The defendant, as the party seeking a credit against his support obligation, had the burden of proving "the actual amount paid by [him] for providing health insurance on behalf of the child[ren]." See La. R.S. 9:315C(4) and 315.8D. No competent evidence was admitted establishing the cost of the insurance. The defendant's unsubstantiated statements, based entirely on hearsay from his second wife, are not sufficient under these circumstances. For the reasons articulated by the court of appeal, I dissent from the majority opinion.