Timothy Austin Scaife v. Deanna Ruth Scaife

Summary

The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, affirmed a child support judgment determining that Timothy Scaife was voluntarily unemployed and imputing income to him beyond his annuity payments. The court upheld the consideration of evidence concerning his expenditures and assets, including potential income from an inflatable rental business and a vacant second home. The court found no merit in Scaife’s evidentiary or child-support-calculation assignments of error and assessed appeal costs to him.

Holdings

1. The district court did not commit reversible error by admitting evidence of Scaife's expenditures and assets because the child-support statutes permit consideration of assets and the evidentiary ruling did not affect a substantial right.
2. The hearsay objection was without merit because counsel made only a blanket objection, Scaife did not answer the challenged question, and the surrounding testimony concerned the witness's personal knowledge of health insurance.
3. The district court did not manifestly err in finding Scaife voluntarily unemployed and in calculating child support based on earning potential rather than only his annuity income.
4. Louisiana child-support statutes permit imputation of reasonable potential rental income from a vacant property owned by a voluntarily unemployed or underemployed parent.
5. The district court did not err in calculating Scaife's child-support obligation using the imputed business and potential rental income.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court erred by admitting evidence concerning Scaife's expenditures and assets.
2. Whether the district court erred by admitting hearsay concerning the family's medical needs and insurance.
3. Whether the district court properly found Scaife voluntarily unemployed and imputed income beyond his annuity.
4. Whether Louisiana child-support statutes permit imputation of potential rental income from a vacant second home to a voluntarily unemployed parent.
5. Whether the resulting child-support calculation was erroneous.

Disposition

affirmed