Robert James Ragland v. Katherine Diamond Ragland

2025 CA 0397 · Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · December 18, 2025 · No. 2025 CA 0397

Summary

The Louisiana First Circuit reviewed a contempt judgment arising from post-divorce disputes involving social-media restrictions, mortgage payments, household-property inventory, child support, visitation, and attorney fees. The court upheld the contempt findings and related relief, concluding that a successor judge properly signed the judgment after the original trial judge recused. The court amended the award of attorney fees from $53,500 to $55,500 and affirmed the judgment as amended.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Writing for the Court
Theriot, J.; Penzato, J.; Balfour, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Decision date
December 18, 2025
Docket number
2025 CA 0397
Procedural posture
Katherine Diamond Ragland appealed a family-court contempt judgment arising from three rules for contempt involving stipulated judgments concerning custody-related social-media posts, the former matrimonial domicile, property inventory, child support, and attorney fees. Robert James Ragland answered the appeal seeking additional attorney fees and costs for defending the appeal.
Standard of review
Contempt rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, while the factual determinations underlying civil contempt are reviewed for manifest error. Custody and visitation determinations are also reviewed for abuse of discretion, and determinations concerning mismanagement of community assets and authorization for one spouse to act without the other's concurrence are reviewed for manifest error.
Precedential value
Published status is not stated in the provided text; the opinion is from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit and contains a reasoned disposition.
Parties
Katherine Diamond Ragland v. Robert James Ragland
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

family law procedurecontemptcommunity propertychild supportappellate procedure

Practice areas

family lawcivil procedureappellate procedurecontemptreal estate

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a contempt judgment signed by a judge after recusal was an absolute nullity.
  2. Whether a successor judge was authorized under Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4209(B)(2) to sign a judgment conforming to the prior judge's written reasons after the prior judge recused.
  3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by finding Katherine in constructive contempt for violating stipulated judgments and orders concerning social-media posts, the mortgage, property inventory, the presence of her mother, removal of the secretary desk, photographs and sworn explanations, child support, and attorney-fee payments.
  4. Whether the trial court manifestly erred in classifying the deferred mortgage principal balance as Katherine's separate debt.
  5. Whether the trial court manifestly erred in authorizing Robert to list and sell the former matrimonial home without Katherine's concurrence.
  6. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a review of visitation for lack of evidence that Katherine was compliant with the domestic-violence offender program.
  7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding $53,500 in attorney fees and whether Robert was entitled to additional attorney fees for successfully defending the appeal.

Holdings

  1. The contempt judgment signed by Judge Baker after her September 18, 2023 recusal was an absolute nullity because her authority to act ceased upon recusal.
  2. Judge Green was empowered under Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4209(B)(2) to sign a written judgment conforming to Judge Baker's prior written reasons because Judge Baker had clearly expressed an affirmative intent to sign it before recusing.
  3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Katherine in constructive contempt for willfully violating lawful judgments and orders concerning social-media posts, mortgage payments, property access and inventory, the presence of her mother, removal of the secretary desk, required photographs and sworn explanations, child support, and previously awarded attorney fees.
  4. The trial court did not manifestly err by classifying the $39,547.02 deferred mortgage principal balance caused by Katherine's failure to pay the mortgage as her separate debt.
  5. The trial court did not manifestly err in authorizing Robert to list and sell the former matrimonial home without Katherine's concurrence.
  6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a review of Katherine's visitation because she failed to provide evidence that she was compliant with the required domestic-violence offender program.
  7. The trial court was authorized to award Robert $53,500 in attorney fees for successfully prosecuting the contempt rules, and Robert was entitled to an additional $2,000 for successfully defending the appeal.

Key quotations

If a prior judge has stated an affirmative intent to sign a judgment and failed to do so for whatever reason, the successor judge is empowered to sign the judgment. (14)
Katherine's social media posts clearly violate the July 16, 2019 stipulated judgment, wherein the parties agreed not to make posts on social media or publicly about the custody matters. (17)
Considering the testimony of the parties, we find no manifest error in the trial court's finding that Robert proved the elements of La. C.C. art. 2369.7. (30)

Factual background

Robert and Katherine were formerly married and jointly owned their former matrimonial home, which Katherine was granted exclusive use of under a stipulated judgment requiring her to pay the mortgage, taxes, and insurance. The parties entered additional stipulated judgments concerning custody, social-media restrictions, Robert's access to inventory household property, child support, and Katherine's participation in a domestic-violence offender program. The trial court found that Katherine repeatedly violated those judgments by making custody-related social-media posts, failing to pay the mortgage and child support, obstructing the property inventory, removing or concealing household items, allowing her mother to be present during an agreed inventory, failing to provide photographs or sworn explanations, and failing to pay previously awarded attorney fees.

Procedural history

The Family Court for East Baton Rouge Parish found Katherine in contempt on multiple grounds, authorized Robert to list and sell the former matrimonial home without Katherine's concurrence, denied a requested visitation review, and awarded Robert $53,500 in attorney fees plus costs. After the original trial judge recused, a successor judge signed the judgment under Louisiana Revised Statutes 13:4209. The court of appeal rejected Katherine's assignments of error, granted Robert's answer, increased the attorney-fee award to $55,500, and affirmed as amended.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…