Timothy Austin Scaife v. Deanna Ruth Scaife

── Timothy Austin Scaife v. Deanna Ruth Scaife ── Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 25-735 TIMOTHY AUSTIN SCAIFE VERSUS DEANNA RUTH SCAIFE ********** APPEAL FROM THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF SABINE, NUMBER 63,606 HONORABLE VERITY GENTRY, DISTRICT JUDGE ********** CLAYTON DAVIS JUDGE ********** Court composed of Sharon Darville Wilson, Gary J. Ortego, and Clayton Davis, Judges. AFFIRMED. Anna Louise Garcie Joseph R. Stevens Sabine Parish District Attorney 495 Capitol St. Many, LA 71449 (318) 256-6246 COUNSEL FOR OTHER APPELLEE: State of Louisiana Joshua S. Guillory Attorney at Law 203 W. Brentwood Blvd, Ste 3 Lafayette, LA 70506 (337) 233-1303 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT: Timothy Austin Scaife Deanna Ruth Hilliard In Proper Person 778 Hwy 1221 Marthaville, LA 71450 (000) 000-0000 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT APPELLEE: Deanna Ruth Hilliard DAVIS, Judge. Timothy Scaife appeals the district court’s child support judgment. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Timothy Scaife is the father of several children and has an ongoing obligation to provide child support to their mothers, Deanna Hilliard and Amanda White. Scaife settled a lawsuit for an injury to his back while working offshore in the amount of $2,750,000. He structured $450,000 of the settlement in an annuity and received a lump sum payment of over $750,000. He now receives $2,680.27 per month from his annuity. His spending since his settlement suggests a more lavish lifestyle. He claims no other income source. Scaife and his current wife own an inflatable rentals business, funded by his separate money. Additionally, he owns a vacant second home as his separate property, not subject to any mortgage or lien. He does not rent it or earn any income from this property. Scaife is otherwise unemployed. He sought disability benefits but was denied. However, he claims the denial was because certain medical evidence was not submitted. He also explained that his back was broken in his workplace accident, and his doctor told him that he would never return to working offshore. However, no expert witnesses testified as to his limitations or current earning capacity. Also, testimony established that he operates a tractor, maintains his forty-acre farm, and participates in outdoor activities. Prior to his workplace accident, he had a gross average income of $102,765.65. The district court found that Scaife was voluntarily unemployed. Because of this, it ruled that his income should not be limited to his annuity amount. For purposes of child support calculation, the court believed Scaife’s gross income should also include income from the inflatable rentals business as well as potential income from his vacant second home. Scaife appeals this decision. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of factual determinations is the manifest error-clearly rental wrong standard, which “precludes the setting aside of a trial court’s finding of fact unless that finding is clearly wrong in light of the record reviewed in its entirety.” Hayes Fund for First United Methodist Church of Welsh, LLC v. Kerr- McGee Rocky Mountain, LLC, 14-2592, p. 8 (La. 12/8/15), 193 So.3d 1110, 1115. To reverse a trial court’s finding of fact, “there must be no reasonable factual basis for the trial court’s conclusion, and the finding must be clearly wrong.” Id. at 1116. Under La.R.S. 9:315.17, “[d]eviations by the trial court from the guidelines set forth in [the statutes governing child support] shall not be disturbed absent a finding of manifest err