Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:310 (2026)

Retroactivity of spousal support order

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§310. Retroactivity of spousal support order

A. An order for spousal support shall be retroactive to the filing date of the petition for spousal support granted in the order.

B. Any support of any kind provided by the judgment debtor from the date the petition for support is filed to the date the support order is issued, to or on behalf of the person for whom support is ordered, shall be credited to the judgment debtor against the amount of the judgment.

C. In the event the court finds good cause for not making the award retroactive, the court may fix the date such award shall become due.

Acts 1984, No. 166, §1; Acts 1993, No. 261, §4, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 84 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case: Hogan v. Hogan, 549 So. 2d 267 (La. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hogan v. Hogan, 549 So. 2d 267 (La. 1989). · cites it 10× “R.S. 9:310 provides that an order for child support or alimony shall be retroactive to the filing date of the petition for child support or alimony, unless the court finds good cause for not making the award retroactive.”

LeFebvre v. LeFebvre, 589 So. 2d 66 (La. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 6× “R.S. 9:310 the courts held that when the judgment is silent "it must be presumed the court intended it to be effective on the date of rendition.”

Lindner v. Lindner, 569 So. 2d 173 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “An order for child support or alimony shall be retroactive to the filing date of the petition for child support or alimony granted in the order. B. Any support of any kind provided by the judgment debtor from the date the petition for support is filed to the date the support…”

Ecklund v. Ecklund, 513 So. 2d 383 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 5× “R.S. 9:310. Appellee argues that the district court judgment should be affirmed.”

Hester v. Hester, 708 So. 2d 462 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “R.S. 9:310. In his supporting memorandum, however, Mr.”

Broussard v. Broussard, 532 So. 2d 281 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “R.S. 9:310 reads in pertinent part as follows: .”

Key v. Willard, 488 So. 2d 1147 (La. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “See also LRS 9:310. [1] The father secondly complains that the trial court should not have rejected his demands that the joint custody decree that had been in effect for three years (nine months to mother and three months to father) should be modified to achieve more equal…”

Pendergrass v. Pendergrass, 667 So. 2d 1213 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF JUDGMENT: Robert also argues that the court's reduction of his child support obligation should have been retroactive to the date of the filing of his motion to reduce pursuant to La.”

Loftice v. Loftice, 985 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Loftice admitted to living with another man. See La. C.C. art. 115.”

Tobin v. Thompson, 485 So. 2d 553 (La. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “, the reduction should have been made retroactive to the date the motion to reduce was filedhe argues that LSA-R.S. 9:310 makes the reduction effective the time the motion was filed because there was no articulated finding of good cause as necessitated by the statute.”

Fuge v. Uiterwyk, 613 So. 2d 717 (La. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “R.S. 9:310 provides that an order for child support or alimony shall be retroactive to the filing date of the petition.”

Coleman v. Coleman, 87 So. 3d 246 (La. Ct. App. 2012). “R.S. 9:310 controls and provides that child support be made retroactive to the date of judicial demand, absent a showing of good cause why it should not be made retroactive.”

Show all 84 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:310(A) — 10 cases

Loftice v. Loftice, 985 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “Loftice admitted to living with another man. See La. C.C. art. 115.”

Lindner v. Lindner, 569 So. 2d 173 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “An order for child support or alimony shall be retroactive to the filing date of the petition for child support or alimony granted in the order. B. Any support of any kind provided by the judgment debtor from the date the petition for support is filed to the date the support…”

January v. January, 649 So. 2d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 1995).

Langley v. Langley, 681 So. 2d 25 (La. Ct. App. 1996).

LeFebvre v. LeFebvre, 589 So. 2d 66 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “R.S. 9:310 the courts held that when the judgment is silent "it must be presumed the court intended it to be effective on the date of rendition.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:310(B) — 2 cases

Cenac v. Cenac, 538 So. 2d 646 (La. Ct. App. 1988).

Gottsegen v. Gottsegen, 508 So. 2d 162 (La. Ct. App. 1987).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:310(C) — 7 cases

Loftice v. Loftice, 985 So. 2d 204 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “Loftice admitted to living with another man. See La. C.C. art. 115.”

Richards v. Richards, 147 So. 3d 800 (La. Ct. App. 2014).

Joiner v. Joiner, 619 So. 2d 581 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

Kessel v. Kessel, 624 So. 2d 14 (La. Ct. App. 1993).

State ex rel. Dep't of Health & Human Resources v. Duvigneaud, 704 So. 2d 398 (La. Ct. App. 1997).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.