SPEARS v. SPEARS (2026)

Joshua Lane Spears appeals the trial court's April 24, 2025 Judgment ordering him to pay child support to Kassie Kennedy Spears in the amount of $2,092.73 per month. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Joshua Spears and Kassie Spears are the parents of one child, Gage Ryder Spears, who was born on May 20, 2012. The parties were married on July 20, 2013. They separated on June 22, 2015, and a Judgment of Divorce was granted on November 21, 2016.

The parties entered into a Consent Judgment on September 3, 2015, granting them joint custody of Gage, with Kassie designated the domiciliary parent. Joshua was granted reasonable visitation with Gage every other weekend from Saturday at 7:00 p.m. until Sunday at 6:00 p.m. The consent judgment further ordered Joshua to pay Kassie $275 per month in child support. Kassie was ordered to maintain health insurance for Gage beginning October 1, 2015, with Joshua responsible for 100% of all medical, dental, and vision expenses for Gage not covered by said insurance.

On April 4, 2016, Kassie filed a Motion to Modify Child Support, asserting that, since the rendition of the September 2015 judgment, Joshua's income had substantially increased while her's had decreased. The civil court minutes of May 5, 2016, reflect that the parties reached a stipulated agreement. Although no judgment is in the record, both parties agree in their appellate briefs that Joshua's monthly child support obligation was increased to $525.00 per month.

On December 20, 2023, Joshua filed a Motion to Modify Child Custody, noting that he now lives in Florida while Kassie and Gage remain in Louisiana. Due to the long distance between the parties’ residences, Joshua asked for holiday and summer visitation. In response to Joshua's motion, Kassie filed a reconventional demand on March 8, 2024, agreeing that Joshua's visitation with Gage needed to be modified and further asking for an increase in child support. Kassie argued that it had been more than eight years since child support had been addressed and Gage's expenses had since increased.

Attached to Kassie's reconventional demand were interrogatories and requests for production of documents directed at Joshua. When Joshua failed to respond to these discovery requests, Kassie filed on May 1, 2014, a Motion to Compel and Motion to Continue, asking the trial court to order Joshua to produce the requested documents and answer the interrogatories. She further requested a continuance of the hearing date on visitation and child support until Joshua responded to her discovery requests.

The hearing went forward as scheduled on May 5, 2024, at which the parties advised the trial court that they had reached an agreement on the issue of custody and visitation. The issue of child support was continued, to be reset on another date mutually agreeable between the counsels of record. Judgment was rendered on July 29, 2024, awarding the parties joint custody of Gage, with Kassie designated the domiciliary parent and Joshua awarded visitation with Gage as set forth in the Joint Custody Implementation Plan. That plan awarded Joshua visitation with Gage on specified holidays and during his summer vacation.

A hearing on the issue of child support was held on February 4, 2025. After a discussion in chambers, the trial court noted on the record that very complex issues were involved and thus the parties would submit the matter on briefs. Joshua filed his initial brief on March 7, 2025, followed by Kassie's brief filed on March 10, 2025. Joshua then filed a reply brief on March 24, 2025, and Kassie a responsive brief on March 28, 2025.

The trial court rendered judgment on April 24, 2025, supported by written reasons for judgment, which the trial court stated were “a verbatim reiteration of the facts and law as set forth by counsel for KASSIE KENNEDY SPEARS[.]”¹ The judgment found in favor of Kassie, awarding Kassie child support in the amount of $2,092.73 per month, to be paid by Joshua in equal installments of $1,036.37 on the first and fifteenth day of each month. The child support was ordered to be effective retroactive to the date of judicial demand, March 24, 2024. Kassie was ordered to maintain a policy of health and dental expenses through her employer on Gage and pay the premiums associated therewith. Joshua was ordered to pay 80.39% of any medical, dental, ophthalmic, orthodontic, and prescription drug expenses not covered by Gage's insurance. Joshua was further ordered to pay 80.39% of all extracurricular expenses incurred on behalf of Gage.

Joshua has appealed, asserting the following assignment of error:

The Seventh Judicial District Court erred when it calculated Joshua Lane Spears[’] gross monthly income, when it failed to account for pre-existing child support payments as required by law, and when it calculated the Health Insurance Premium to be allocated into the Worksheet A.

DISCUSSION

Standard of Review

“The trial court has great discretion in determining the amount of a child support award, and that determination should not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the trial court has committed a clear abuse of discretion or manifest error in factual appreciations.” Murphy v. Murphy, 04-1332, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05), 894 So.2d 542, 544, writ denied, 05-983 (La. 11/28/05), 916 So.2d 144. It is also “within a trial court's broad discretion to determine which figures are proper to calculate the amount of [a party's] monthly gross income.” Id. at 545.

Joshua argues “that the Trial Court committed multiple legal errors which interfere with the fact-finding process; and therefore, this Court should review this case de novo.” In support of his argument, Joshua relies on Evans v. Lungrin, 97-541 (La. 2/6/98), 708 So.2d 731, in which the supreme court held that when the trial court commits one or more legal errors that interdict the fact-finding process, the appellate court should conduct a de novo review of the record. “A legal error occurs when a trial court applies incorrect principles of law and such errors are prejudicial. Legal errors are prejudicial when they materially affect the outcome and deprive a party of substantial rights.” Id. at 735 (citations omitted).

As we do not find that the trial court committed any legal errors when applying the law to determine Joshua's child support obligation, a de novo review of this record is not warranted, and we have applied the manifest error standard of review.

Calculation of Joshua's Gross Monthly Income

Joshua first asserts that the trial court erred when it calculated his gross monthly income. According to Joshua, he is self-employed and receives income from two food trucks, Sports to Geaux, LLC and Big Meaux's BBQ, LLC. Joshua has calculated what he believes to be his income for the year 2023 using the income listed from each food truck on the Schedule Cs attached to his 2023 tax return and then subtracting what he considers to be ordinary and necessary business expenses required to produce income. La.R.S. 9:315(C)(3)(c). These “ordinary and necessary expenses” are listed in profit and loss statements created and filed into the record by Joshua. Per Joshua's calculation, his 2023 gross annual combined income from Sports to Geaux, LLC and Big Meaux's Bayou BBQ, LLC was $150,465.00, which equates to a gross monthly income of $12,538.75. Joshua then used the profit and loss statements to calculate his 2024 gross annual income at $146,876.05, which equates to a gross monthly income of $12,239.67.²

Kassie also uses Joshua's 2023 tax return to determine his gross monthly income. However, she includes in her calculation not only his income from Sports to Geaux, LLC and Big Meaux's Bayou BBQ, LLC, but also income from another food truck, Swamp Dawgs to Geaux, LLC, and a fourth business, Jungle Beach Concierge, LLC.³ Schedule Cs were attached to Joshua's 2023 tax return for all four businesses, indicating that Joshua earned income in 2023 from each. Kassie argues that Joshua's failure to produce the requested discovery at the trial court level was his attempt to conceal and/or underreport his income. She maintains that his income from all four businesses reported in the Schedule Cs attached to his 2023 tax return must be included in calculating his income for purposes of child support. Based on Kassie's calculations, Joshua's total gross annual income is $256,389.00, with a gross monthly income of $21,365.75.

In determining Joshua's child support obligation, the trial court relied on the calculations made by Kassie and determined Joshua's gross monthly income to be $21,365.75. It is undisputed that Kassie's gross monthly income is $5,210.67, as evidenced by her paycheck from the Rapides Parish School Board. Using these sums to calculate child support per the statutory guidelines, the trial court found that Joshua owes Kassie child support in the amount of $2,092.73 per month. La.R.S. 9:315–315.20.

Joshua argues on appeal that the trial court erred in giving credence to Kassie's argument that Joshua was attempting to conceal or underreport his income. He further argues that the trial court blindly accepted Kassie's calculation of Joshua's income. We find that the trial court did not err in accepting Kassie's calculation of Joshua's income. The sums Kassie used to calculate Joshua's income came directly from his own 2023 tax return and the Schedule Cs attached to that tax return from each of his four businesses. Thus, the amount of income used by the trial court to determine child support is supported by the record. In its written reasons for judgment, the trial court specifically noted the following:

JOSHUA LANE SPEARS wants to allege his income is a lot less than that which is set forth in his tax returns that are prepared by his current wife․ JOSHUA LANE SPEARS has not produced any supporting documentation other than a profit and loss statement and a tax return to show that expenses which he believes are necessary business expenses should be deducted from his gross income. Again, if JOSHUA LANE SPEARS did not want his gross income to be higher then (sic) that which he alleges, then why did he not produce the information to support his claim for necessary business expenses to be deducted therefrom?

Based on the record, we find that the trial court did not err in placing the burden on Joshua to prove his income. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.1.1(A) provides, “When a party alleges that income is being concealed or underreported, the court shall admit evidence relevant to establishing the actual income of the party[.]” In calculating Joshua's income, Kassie referred the trial court to the 2023 tax return prepared by Joshua's wife and filed into the record by Joshua himself. The trial court found this to be evidence establishing Joshua's actual income and used that income in its calculation of Joshua's child support obligation. While Joshua did provide Profit and Loss Statements to the trial court in support of his claimed income and expenses, these statements were created by him, and no evidence was produced to support the figures included therein.

As stated above, the trial court has great discretion in determining which figures are proper to calculate the amount of a party's gross income. Murphy, 894 So.2d 542. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit manifest error when determining Joshua's gross income for purposes of calculating his child support obligation.

Preexisting Child Support Obligation

Joshua next argues that the trial court erred when it failed to account for a preexisting child support obligation. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315(C)(1)(a) specifically provides that, for purposes of determining child support, any amounts Joshua might owe for preexisting child support obligations, under an order of support to another who is not a party to this proceeding, should be subtracted from Joshua's gross income. Joshua claims that he is currently paying child support in the amount of $550 per month for two minor children from a previous relationship. According to Joshua, he was ordered to pay said child support in docket number 82,912-B in the 10th Judicial District Court, Parish of Natchitoches. Nonetheless, the trial court did not subtract this preexisting child support obligation from Joshua's gross income when determining the child support obligation in this proceeding.

Kassie asserts that there is no evidence of a preexisting child support obligation because no certified order or judgment has ever been produced or filed into the record of this proceeding. The trial court also noted this in its written reasons for judgment, wherein it stated,

It is interesting to note that if [Joshua] wished to have such a credit reduction made from his gross income that he would have produced a certified copy of the Judgment or Order from the Court which provided same. No such Order or Judgment has ever been produced to prove JOSHUA LANE SPEARS’ entitlement to same.

We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion or commit manifest error when it declined to subtract Joshua's alleged preexisting child support obligation from his gross income. There is no evidence in the record, in the form of a judgment, order, or otherwise, to support Joshua's claim of a preexisting child support obligation.

Calculation of Health Insurance Premium

Finally, Joshua asserts that the trial court erred when it calculated the health insurance premium to be allocated to Kassie. The September 3, 2015 Consent Judgment ordered Kassie to maintain health insurance for Gage, and she continues to do so. It is undisputed that $131.80 is deducted from Kassie's monthly paycheck for health insurance premiums.

When calculating child support, “[t]he cost of health insurance premiums incurred on behalf of the child shall be added to the basic child support obligation.” La.R.S. 9:315.4(A). Thus, Kassie shall be given credit for the amount she pays for monthly health insurance premiums on behalf of Gage. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315(C)(4) defines “[h]ealth insurance premiums” as “the actual amount paid by a party for providing health insurance on behalf of the child.” It then specifies, “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.” La.R.S. 9:325(C)(4).

According to Joshua, the $131.80 that Kassie pays per month is for health insurance on three children, Gage and her two children from her current marriage. The two additional children are not the subject of this child support proceeding. Thus, Joshua argues that the monthly health insurance premium should be divided by three, and only one-third, $43.93, should be allocated to Kassie when calculating child support, representing the amount spent on Gage alone.

Kassie maintains, however, that the monthly health insurance premium paid by her is the same whether she has one child or five. Thus, even if she was only paying the health insurance premium for Gage, the monthly amount would still be $131.80. Kassie further submits that no evidence was produced at trial by either party to prove that additional dependents were included in that health insurance premium.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court adopted Kassie's initial argument that the amount deducted from her income is the same whether she has one child or five. Based on this fact, the trial court denied Joshua's argument that the amount paid by Kassie for health insurance premiums on Gage should be divided by three. As noted above, La.R.S. 9:315(C)(4) specifically provides that the cost of health insurance premiums paid by a parent on behalf of a child “shall be prorated among the dependents covered before being applied to the guidelines” if “not all of the dependents covered are the subject of the guidelines calculation[.]” Kassie has two additional children with her current husband. Those additional children are not the subject of this child support matter. Thus, should the amount of health insurance premium Kassie is currently paying cover all three children, the cost of the coverage should be prorated and divided by three, with only a third of the cost being allocated to Kassie when calculating child support. It is irrelevant whether Kassie is required to pay the same amount for one child or five.

Based on the above, we find that the trial court was incorrect when it based its finding on the fact that the same amount is deducted from Kassie's paycheck whether her health insurance covers one child or five. Nonetheless, we find that the result remains the same because there is no evidence in the record to indicate that the $131.80 paid by Kassie in monthly health insurance premiums includes any dependents other than Gage. For these reasons, we find that Joshua's argument that the health insurance premium allocated to Kassie should be reduced by one-third is without merit.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court's April 24, 2025 judgment, setting Joshua's child support obligation at $2,092.73 per month, is affirmed. All costs of this matter are assigned to Joshua Lane Spears.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The trial court incorporated the main body of Kassie's March 28, 2025 Responsive Brief verbatim into its Reasons for Judgment.

2.   We note that the calculations included in Joshua's appellate brief are not the same as those in his briefs to the trial court. In his briefs to the trial court, Joshua argued that the transaction reports of Sports to Geaux, LLC and Big Meaux's Bayou BBQ, LLC should be used to calculate his total gross monthly income at $4,844. Those transaction reports included additional expenses which Joshua claimed were necessary for the operation of these two food trucks. However, in his appellate brief, Joshua used only his 2023 tax return and 2024 Profit and Loss Statements to calculate his gross monthly income, which he now claims is $12,239.67.

3.   Jungle Beach Concierge, LLC is listed as “Jongle Beach LLC” on the Schedule C attached to Joshua's 2023 tax return.

STILES, Judge.