TRAHAN v. TRAHAN, 2010-0109 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/11/10)

was appointed by the court, used a different method of appraisal, an EBIDA [Earnings Before Interest, Depreciation, and Amortization] valuation, and assigned a value of $13,250,000 for Chemtech. Mr. DeRouen testified that EBIDA tends to produce a higher number than the discounted cash flows method. Both Mr. DeRouen and Mr. Koerber agreed that Mr. Cartier did not follow the valuation standards for business appraisals. They both gave various reasons why the method used by Mr. Cartier was inappropriate in valuing this small closely held business. Mr. Carder's approach differed from the other appraisers and he is not a certified business appraiser therefore, the court did not . . . use his appraisal.

Mr. DeRouen and Mr. Koerber, both certified business appraisers, had similar capitalization rates and many of their numbers were the same. In fact, Mr. Koerber testified that his report was completed weeks before Mr. DeRouen's report and that Mr. DeRouen used his calculations with a couple of modifications. Mr. DeRouen also testified that he used Mr. Koerber's information and then departed from it in the gross profit margin and the operating expenses.

Mr. DeRouen used a gross profit percentage of 50.67% for the years 2009 through 2012. He testified that he arrived at the 50.67% figure using the average gross profit from the years 2004-2007. He further testified that, out of an abundance of caution, he agreed with Mr. Koerber for the year 2008 and used a gross profit percentage of 46.5% for that year. He explained that he did this because his conversations with the management of Chemtech indicated that there may be some problem reaching the average gross profit figure. He stated that he looked online at the cost issues and although he saw that the cost of materials was in an up cycle, he did not see where Chemtech was having difficulty passing on price increases and therefore saw no effect of the raw materials cost increase on the profits of Chemtech. When Mr. DeRouen was questioned about an article stating that it will get more difficult for chemical companies to pass on price increases, Mr. DeRouen responded that the question was whether that was known or knowable in January 2008, seeming to imply that it was not. On cross examination Mr. DeRouen admitted that he did not know which raw material prices have increased the most. He stated that the management of Chemtech did not mention to him that they had stockpiled materials so they would not have felt the effect of the price increases at the time of the valuation.

Mr. Koerber used a gross profit percentage of 46.50% for the future. He testified that he based his figure on the history of the company and the conferences that he had with Mr. Trahan and Mr. Mistretta, who showed him what they are spending on raw materials. He cited Chemtech's blend sheets and the recent rise in the cost of raw materials as the reason for his lower gross profit percentage. He testified that he looked at prices of raw materials prior to the valuation date and that these things were "known and knowable". Mr. Koerber was able to testify about specific price increases for chemicals used by Chemtech. Mr. Koerber testified that he does work for a phosphates plant and that they have seen similar price increases. Mr. Koerber testified that it does not appear that Mr. DeRouen looked at the cost of raw materials or the blend sheets. He testified that as of the valuation date there was a tremendous increase in prices, only some of which can be passed on to the customer. He also discussed two anomalies that happened in 2007 that lead [sic] to greater gross profits for that year. These were a sale of equipment and large Motiva contracts that Chemtech received with no bid.

Operating expenses were the other major distinction in the appraisers' values. Mr. DeRouen testified that he determined that Chemtech's operating expenses are high in comparison with their industry peers and have been high historically. He stated that he felt there is room for efficiency there. When questioned on cross about how he picked the percentage of future operating expenses that he used in his report, he stated that he just used a judgment call.

Mr. Koerber found that the operating expenses would grow at the same rate as sales. He stated that he used Chemtech's business model as well as their past as evidence for this and that his projections are based on historical information. He testified that Mr. DeRouen did not use the historical numbers.

Mr. Mistretta, Mr. Trahan's partner, and Mr. Trahan testified about how Chemtech is operated. Mr. Mistretta discussed two large new contracts with Motiva in 2006 and 2007. He stated that they received Shell Motiva without bid and they were able to charge a very high price for the work. He stated that this no bid contract, high price, and lag time between receiving the payment and incurring the cost lead them to a bubble in net profit for 2007. He said that Mr. DeRouen did not take this into account in his valuation. He further testified that Chemtech has never averaged the projected profits in Mr. DeRouen's report. Mr. Mistretta testified that one of the Motiva contracts is up for bid in September 2009 and that they were told that they have to get their price down because Motiva is no longer in a "hurry up and fix the problem" situation. He said that Chemtech must lower its price to be more competitive because it was 70% higher than prior vendors. He said that this price reduction will come directly off the profit that Chemtech made in the past with Motiva. Mr. Mistretta also testified about his concern that the key people who initially gave Chemtech the accounts are no longer at the plants. Shell differs from their other customers in this regard since they rotate their employees to other plants every few years. These Motiva contracts represent almost 50% of Chemtech's business. Much testimony was given about the sale of a large piece of equipment in 2007 that also lead [sic] to a greater profit margin.

Mr. Mistretta also testified about the cost of raw materials. He testified that raw material costs are not cyclical as alleged by Mr. DeRouen and that costs have increased 100 to 200% in the last year. Chemtech's competitors have better gross profit margins because they are much larger and they are able to buy in bulk. Chemtech is the smallest among its competitors. Mr. Trahan testified that Chemtech has contracts with some of its customers that prohibit passing on cost increases.

Mr. Koerber argued during trial that after understanding what Mr. Trahan intended in the marriage contract he would have used the asset based approach. He did give a value for Chemtech using this method. The contract says only that the parties will determine the value of Chemtech using an agreed upon method. The Court believes that this value must be the fair market value. The discounted cash flow method is the method used by both appraisers and for which the Court had the most testimony and information. The Court has determined that it is an appropriate method and will use the numbers from that method to value Chemtech Chemical Services L.L.C.

After an exhaustive consideration of the reports and testimony presented to the Court regarding the value of Chemtech, the Court finds Mr. Koerber's value using the discounted cash flow method is the appropriate value of Chemtech. He clearly had the most knowledge of the everyday workings of Chemtech as well as their contracts and history. Additionally, Mr. Koerber's numbers were all similar regardless of the method he used while Mr. DeRouen had a much lower number using the capitalized cash flow method. Mr. Koerber testified that the numbers using the discounted cash flow method and the capitalized cash flow method should be close and if they are not, the valuator should know that something is wrong. Interestingly Mr. DeRouen's value using the capitalized cash flow method was about the same as Mr. Koerber's, yet by simply changing the percentage of gross profit and operating expenses he arrive[d] at a much greater value with the discounted cash flow method. Mr. Ralph Stevens, who was admitted as an expert in tax law and business valuations, also testified that all of the numbers should have been similar whether using the discounted cash flow method or the capitalized cash flow method. Mr. DeRouen stated that he used many of Mr. Koerber's numbers and changed operating expenses because he felt there was more room for efficiency as compared with similar companies. There was no evidence introduced that Chemtech will suddenly become more efficient in the future.

Mr. Mistretta's testimony was clear, direct and extremely helpful in outlining how Chemtech is operated and why the profits were greater in certain years. Mr. Koerber was more aware of the activities described by Mr. Mistretta. Mr. Koerber's numbers were more clearly supported by historical evidence.

It is well settled in Louisiana that the trier of fact is not bound by the testimony of an expert, but such testimony is to be weighed the same as any other evidence. The trier of fact may accept or reject in whole or in part the opinion expressed by an expert. Harris v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development, 2007-1566, p. 25 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/10/08), 997 So.2d 849, 866, writ denied, 2008-2886 (La.2/6/09), 999 So.2d 785. The effect and weight to be given expert testimony is within the broad discretion of the trial court. Morgan v. State Farm Fire and Cos. Co., Inc., 2007-0334, p. 8 (La. App.11/2/07), 978 So.2d 941, 946. The decision reached by the trial court regarding expert testimony will not be disturbed on appeal absent a finding that the trial court abused its discretion. Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Carr and Associates, Inc., 2008-2114, p. 17 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/8/09), 15 So.3d 158, 171, writ denied, 2009-1627 (La.10/30/09), 21 So.3d 292.

Having thoroughly reviewed the evidence and expert testimony, we find no abuse of the trial court's discretion in finding Mr. Koerber's appraisal value of Chemtech, which he arrived at using the discounted cash flow method, to be the appropriate appraisal value of Chemtech based on the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, Mrs. Trahan's assignment of error regarding the court's alleged abuse of discretion in its application of expert witness evidence in valuing Mr. Trahan's interest in Chemtech is without merit. However, our analysis of Mr. Trahan's interest in Chemtech does not end here.

After concluding that Mr. Koerber's appraisal value was an appropriate starting point, the court then applied a marketability discount in determining the fair market value of Chemtech. With regard to whether the marketability discount should be applied in this case, the court made the following findings in its written reasons for judgment:

Mr. DeRouen and Mr. Koerber both provided the value of Chemtech before and after the marketability discount. Mr. DeRouen explained that a marketability discount is applied in valuing a small closely held business because you are not valuing something that can be readily traded and this applies to Chemtech. He testified that there is a discount due to the fact that it is not traded on the free and open market. It has restricted stock. Also studies tell us that in companies of this sort the time to sell is an important factor. Mr. DeRouen suggested, however, that it may not be necessary to use a marketability discount, as there is no plan to sell the business, however he stated he felt that was within the discretion of the court.

Mr. Koerber testified that he thought it was necessary to include a marketability discount because Chemtech is a closely held entity. The Court is aware of the jurisprudence from the 5th, 4th, and 2nd circuits applying no marketability discount to businesses where there were no plans to sell them, and the 3rd circuit case where a marketability discount was applied. D'Spain v. D'Spain, 527 So.2d 309 (La.Ct.App. 5th Cir. 1988), writ granted, cause remanded, 528 So.2d 152 (La. 1988) and Mexic v. Mexic, 577 So.2d 1046 (La.Ct.App. 4th Cir. 1991)), are factually distinguishable from this case and both involved the valuing of real estate. See Collier v. Collier, 790 So.2d 759 (La.Ct.App.3d Cir. 2001), writ denied, 803 So.2d 30 (La. 2001), where a marketability discount was applied and [ Head v. Head, 714 So.2d 231 (La.Ct. App. 2nd Cir. 1998)] where a marketability discount was not applied.

Louisiana courts have not clearly determined a standard for valuing a community business. The contract in this case provides only that [Mrs.] Trahan shall be entitled to 1/2 the value of Chemtech Chemical Services. The Court believes the marketability/majority discount is appropriate because Chemtech is a small, closely-held L.L.C[.] with only two members. Mr. Trahan is the majority owner, however he and Mr. Mistretta clearly work together making decisions for the company. Therefore, a 20% marketability discount is appropriate considering all the facts in this case and was applied by the Court. The fact that this company is small, closely held and not traded on the open market limits the available buyers and thereby reduces the price. The marketability discount is, appropriate in this case.

. . . .

Mr. Koerber, using the discounted cash flow method, valued Chemtech at $8,177,530. The Court determined that a marketability discount was appropriate. Therefore, after the 20% marketability discount, he found the fair market value of Chemtech to be $6,542,024. As per the contract the $1,500,000.00 will be subtracted from the entire value of Chemtech. This total equals $5,042,024. Mr. Trahan's 66.67% interest in this amount is $3,361,517.40. Therefore, [Mrs.] Trahan is entitled to 1/2 of that amount or $1,680,758.70.

Mrs. Trahan argues on appeal that the court's decision to apply a marketability discount to the value of Chemtech is clearly contrary to the Louisiana Supreme Court's ruling in Cannon v. Bertrand, 2008-1073 (La.1/21/09), 2 So.3d 393. In Cannon, one of three members of a limited liability corporation, Cannon, notified the other two that he desired to withdraw, and subsequently filed suit to have the value of his one-third share determined. The plaintiffs expert suggested no minority discount; defendants' expert suggested 75 percent; the trial court applied 35 percent, which the court of appeal affirmed. On writs to the Louisiana Supreme Court, it held that no discount should have been applied, noting as follows:

Minority discounts and other discounts, such as for lack of marketability, may have a place in our law; however, such discounts must be used sparingly and only when the facts support thenuse. Here, the district court determined the value of the assets owned by the company and then applied a discount. Under the particular facts of this case, though, the use of a discount was unwarranted and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion in applying such a discount. The buyers of the partnership interest at issue are the two remaining partners in the partnership. These two partners will not be subject to a lack of control as would a third party, as each has an equal say in the control of the partnership, and, because the partners have already determined to purchase the partnership share themselves by opting to continue the partnership and avoid liquidation, neither is lack of marketability an issue. Furthermore, discounting the market value of the partnership's property would be inequitable. The withdrawing partner should not be penalized for doing something the law allows him to do, and the remaining partners should not thereby realize a windfall profit at his expense. [Footnotes omitted.]

Cannon, 2008-1073 at 5-6, 2 So.3d at 396-397. The Cannon court did not state that marketability discounts should never be used, but rather stated that the discounts should be used "sparingly and only when the facts support their use." Cannon, 2008-1073 at 5, 2 So.3d at 396. Based on the facts particular to that case, the court concluded that a discount was not warranted.

In the instant case, unlike in Cannon, the marketability discount was applied by experts for both parties and accepted by the court based on the facts and circumstances herein. In Cannon, the sole issue before the court was the value of the business. That was not the case here as can be seen from the lengthy list of issues presented for our review. This case involved the classification and valuation of numerous assets and liabilities. The court below noted that Chemtech was a small, closely-held company and that although Mr. Trahan was the majority owner, he and Mr. Mistretta worked closely together to make decisions for the company. Thus, the court concluded that a marketability discount was appropriate. Based on our review of the record herein and the facts and circumstances particular to this case, we find the court was not in error in applying the marketability discount.

MRS. TRAHAN'S CLAIM FOR SEPARATE MORTGAGE DEBT PAYMENT

Mrs. Trahan asserts the court erred in denying her claim for reimbursement for payment of Mr. Trahan's separate mortgage debt with community funds. Mrs. Trahan alleges that Mr. Trahan's separate mortgage debt on his home had a $150,000.00 principal balance at the time of their marriage, all of which was paid off during their marriage with community funds, thus entitling Mrs. Trahan to a $75,000.00 reimbursement payment by Mr. Trahan. In response, Mr. Trahan argues that "the family home basically became community (in the form of joint ownership) when Mr. Trahan donated one-half of the home to [Mrs.] Trahan, keeping a credit for the equity that he had in the home prior to the marriage." Thus, Mr. Trahan maintains, "the community funds used to pay the note from the time that they were married were used to pay a community debt since the house was now owned by both of the parties."

After considering the evidence and hearing from the parties on the issue of Mrs. Trahan's claim for reimbursement for payment of Mr. Trahan's separate mortgage debt with community funds with regard to the S. Harrell's Ferry Road home, the court made the following findings:

[Mrs.] Trahan claimed she is entitled to reimbursement for the separate mortgage debt on the South Harrell's Ferry Road home brought into the marriage by Mr. Trahan and paid with community funds. Clearly, had there been no marriage contract specifically dealing with what [Mrs.] Trahan was entitled to out of the South Harrell's Ferry home, she would be entitled to one-half (not 100% as argue[d] by [Mrs.] Trahan in her post trial brief) of the community funds paid [sic] used to pay this debt. However, the marriage contract entered into between the parties specifically addresses the sum that [Mrs.] Trahan is entitled to from the South Harrell's Ferry Road home. The contract provides, "[Mrs. Trahan] shall also be entitled to one-half of the increased equity in the property after the date of marriage." Equity is the value of a piece of property over and above any mortgage or other liabilities relating to it. Mr. Trahan had a mortgage of approximately $150,000.00 on the home at the time of the marriage. $210,000.00 was the value of the home over and above this $150,000.00 mortgage, at the time of the marriage. As the mortgage was paid, it increased the equity in which [Mrs.] Trahan shared.

Had the parties wanted [Mrs.] Trahan to be entitled to additional sums for payment of the mortgage during the marriage they necessarily would have had to include this in the contract. This would have led to an absurd result. Using [Mrs.] Trahan's argument each time the community paid $1 on the mortgage she was entitled to 50 cents in reimbursement and 50 cents in increased equity in the home, thereby giving Mr. Trahan absolutely no benefit from any of the payments on this mortgage. The fact that the parties placed additional mortgages on the home is not relevant to this issue. [Mrs;] Trahan's claim for one-half of the principal paid on the mortgage on the South Harrell's Ferry Road home is denied.

The marriage contract specifically provides for Mrs. Trahan's interest in the home as follows:

[Mrs. Trahan] specifically waives and [relinquishes] of all of rights which she may have to any and all equity accumulated by [Mr. Trahan] in this separate property prior to their marriage. The parties agree that [Mr. Trahan's] equity is $210,000.00 at the time of the execution of this agreement. [Mrs. Trahan] shall be entitled to reimbursement of any and all of her separate funds used to make improvements to the abovementioned property, and any appreciation in the property attributed to the investment of her separate funds into the property in the event of a divorce between the parties. [Mrs. Trahan] shall also be entitled to one-half of the increased equity in the property after the date of marriage. This separate property will remain under the sole civil administration or control of [Mr. Trahan]. If the property is rented or leased and the parties are still married, the income and/or rents from the property will be divided equally between the community and [Mr. Trahan] as his separate property, after deductions are made for expenses.

The language of the contract is clear. A contract between the parties is the law between them, and the courts are obligated to give legal effect to such contracts according to the true intent of the parties. La. Civ. Code art. 2045; Amoco Production Co. v. Fina Oil Chemical Co., 95-1185, p. 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/23/96), 670 So.2d 502, 511, unit denied, 96-1024 (La.5/31/96), 673 So.2d 1037. As correctly noted by the court below, had there been no provision in the marriage contract specifically dealing with this issue, the outcome would be different. However, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and the evidence and conclude that given the facts and circumstances as presented herein, the court did not err in denying Mrs. Trahan's claim for reimbursement of one-half of the principal paid on the pre-marriage separate mortgage debt on the S. Harrell's Ferry Road home. This assignment of error is without merit.

THE MERCEDES BENZ DEBT CREDITED TO MR. TRAHAN

Mrs. Trahan alleges the court erred in crediting Mr. Trahan with a credit for the $38,288.02 debt on the Mercedes Benz as there was no trial evidence to support the existence of this debt. Mr. Trahan responds that this was a community vehicle that was used by him, while Mrs. Trahan drove a leased BMW. Mr. Trahan also points out that at the time of trial, the balance owed on the Mercedes Benz was $38,288.02 as agreed upon by the parties.

According to the record, the parties stipulated that the value of the Mercedes Benz was $43,287.00. The only evidence in the record of the $38,288.02 debt is "Exhibit A" attached to Mr. Trahan's post-trial brief. This exhibit is a statement from Chase Auto Finance showing a principal balance as of November 14, 2008, of $38,288.02. The statement also shows a monthly payment of $1,186.83, which is the same amount Mr. Trahan attributed to his monthly car payment when asked at trial about his monthly expenses. Based on our review of the record, we find the court's ruling on this issue to be clearly supported by the evidence in the record. Mrs. Trahan's to the contrary is without merit.

At the close of evidence, the court instructed the parties to file post-trial briefs. There was some discussion on the record about what the court expected from these briefs. However, there was also mention of discussions "in chambers," thus making it impossible for us to know exactly what the court advised the parties regarding the admissibility of additional exhibits. Nonetheless, it is clear that the court considered Mr. Trahan's exhibit in ruling on this issue. Thus, it is also before us on review.

$300.00 FEDERAL TAX REFUND

Mrs. Trahan claims a $300.00 federal tax refund that was allocated to her must be removed from the accounting as there was no evidence that she received this refund. She also alleges that this refund is not listed in the Joint Detailed Descriptive List of the parties or any separated Detailed Descriptive List of Mr. Trahan. We find no merit to this argument.

According to the record, this $300.00 refund was listed by Mr. Trahan in both of the Detailed Descriptive Lists that he filed, the January 10, 2008 filing and the July 23, 2008 filing. The refund was also included in the Joint Detailed Descriptive List filed on August 22, 2008. In written reasons for judgment, the court found, "The parties received a federal tax refund in the amount of $300.00 which is in the possession of [Mrs.] Trahan. This asset shall be allocated to [Mrs.] Trahan." Based on the record before us, we cannot say the court erred in this respect.

MRS. TRAHAN'S SOCIAL SECURITY CLAIM

Mrs. Trahan argues on appeal that the court erred in denying her claim for compensating property allocation, in accordance with La.R.S. 9:2801.1, to offset Mr. Trahan's excess social security interest accumulated during the marriage. Mr. Trahan asserts the court correctly denied the claim "for many reasons," chief among them that Mrs. Trahan has no right to receive social security benefits from Mr. Trahan. While we acknowledge a trial court's discretion under La.R.S. 9:2801.1 to assign a spouse community property equal to the amount the other spouse will receive in social security benefits, we find no merit to Mrs. Trahan's argument based on the unique facts of this case.

In denying Mrs. Trahan's claim, the court gave the following reasons:

[Mrs.] Trahan asserts a claim in accordance with [La.] R.S. 9:2801.1 against the social security retirement account of [Mr.] Trahan funded during the marriage in excess of the Social Security Retirement Account value of [Mrs.] Trahan. She asserts a claim in the amount of $14,033.58.

[La.] R.S. [ 9:2801.1] states

"When federal law or the provisions of a statutory pension or retirement plan, state or federal, preempt or preclude community classification of property that would have been classified as community property under the principles of the Civil Code, the spouse of the person entitled to such property shall be allocated or assigned the ownership of community property equal in value to such property prior to the division of the rest of the community property. Nevertheless, if such property consists of a spouse's right to receive social security benefits or the benefits themselves, then the court in its discretion may allocate or assign other community property, equal in value to the other spouse." Mr. Burris, [Mrs.] Trahan's expert CPA provided the Court with his method of determining the amount [Mrs.] Trahan was owed. Mr. Burris testified that he used his own social security information because he and Mr. Trahan are the same age and have a similar work history. Mr. Burris stated that "if his assumption were correct" [then] his calculation would be very close. Further, 42 U.S.C.A. entitles a "divorced" wife to social security of their husband only if they were married for a period of ten years. These parties clearly were not. 9:2801 leaves this within the [courts'] discretion. The evidence introduced was insufficient to support this claim. There were far too many speculations, assumptions and unknowns in the calculation provided to the Court. Further, these parties entered into a marriage contract that resulted in [Mrs.] Trahan receiving significant assets that she would not have received without the marriage contract. Presumably had the parties wanted to include additional amounts for social security they would have done so in the contract. Therefore, the Court will not allocate additional community property to [Mrs.] Trahan.

We find no abuse of discretion by the court in denying this claim. This assignment of error is without merit.

REDUCTION OF MR. TRAHAN'S REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM

Mrs. Trahan alleges that she is owed additional funds because the court failed to reduce Mr. Trahan's reimbursement claim by one-half of the alleged tax savings to Mr. Trahan. Mr. Trahan asserts the court properly denied this claim because Mrs. Trahan presented no evidence at trial of what, if any, benefit Mr. Trahan would receive from those deductions.

After reviewing the evidence and hearing testimony from the parties and expert witnesses, the court denied Mrs. Trahan's claim. The court gave the following reasons for its findings:

[Mrs.] Trahan requests that, to the extent Mr. Trahan asserts a claim for reimbursement of any tax deductible community items paid with separate funds, she be given an offset against the reimbursement claim for one-half of the tax savings to Mr. Trahan. [Mrs.] Trahan presented no evidence at trial of what, if any, benefit Mr. Trahan would receive for these deductions. In fact, in the year 2007 [Mrs.] Trahan prevented Mr. Trahan from claiming itemized deductions by rushing to file her return so that she could receive a $33,000 refund and leaving him with several hundred thousand dollars in debt to pay. [Mrs.] Trahan now alleges that her CPA is working with Mr. Trahan's CPA to file an amended 2007 return with itemized deductions. There was no evidence of this at trial. There was some testimony at trial indicating that, due to the high tax bracket of Mr. Trahan, he will not be able to take advantage of these deductions. Insufficient evidence was introduced to support this claim.

The evidence in the record reasonably supports the court's ruling on this issue. Therefore, we find no error by the court. This assignment of error is meritless.

EXPERT WITNESS FEES

With regard to expert witness fees, the court stated as follows in its written reasons for judgment: "The fees of Mr. Cartier shall be taxed as costs and shall be split equally between the parties. Each party shall be responsible for their own expert witness fees for the remainder of the expert witnesses." Mrs. Trahan argues that judgment should be rendered in favor of Mrs. Trahan and against Mr. Trahan for the entirety of all expert fees incurred by Mrs. Trahan. On appeal, the amount and fixing of expert fees will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Samuel v. Baton Rouge Gen. Med. Center, 99-1148, p. 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/2/00), 798 So.2d 126, 132. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's ruling on expert witness fees and decline to disturb same.

CONCLUSION

For the above and foregoing reasons, we amend the March 3, 2009 judgment to provide for legal interest in favor of Mrs. Trahan from the date of the judgment of partition. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed. All costs associated with this appeal are assessed equally between the parties.

AMENDED IN PART, AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.