Adams v. Adams
408 So. 2d 1322 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Revised Statute 9:301, a divorce based on living separate and apart for one year requires that at least one spouse voluntarily intended to terminate the marital association, irrespective of the other spouse's mental condition or the initial cause of physical separation.
Facts:
- Juanita and Henry Adams were married on February 29, 1948, and lived together until July 22, 1977.
- During the last ten years of their marriage, Henry frequently exhibited irrational behavior, characterized by extreme verbal abuse and threats of physical violence directed toward family members, including threatening Juanita with a machete.
- In May 1974, Henry was hospitalized at Central Louisiana State Hospital for mental illness, and in March 1977, he was again hospitalized at the Springfield, Missouri, Federal Psychiatric Hospital after threatening a U.S. postal worker, subsequently being placed on federal probation.
- On the morning of July 22, 1977, after Henry became belligerent, verbally abusive, choked Juanita, and threatened her with a machete, Juanita fled their home, intending to permanently separate from him.
- Juanita contacted Henry's federal probation officer, Timothy Harrison, informing him of her intent to permanently separate, and Harrison later recommended she sign formal commitment papers for Henry.
- Later that same day, July 22, 1977, Henry was taken to Central Louisiana State Hospital, and Juanita and Henry have not lived together since.
- Juanita later returned to live in their home after Henry was confined elsewhere and informed hospital staff and a judge that she did not want Henry to return home for visits or stay with her.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 21, 1978, Juanita Adams filed a suit for separation from bed and board against Henry Adams, Sr., alleging cruel treatment, but this suit did not proceed to judgment.
- On January 30, 1980, Juanita Adams filed suit for divorce in the trial court against Henry Adams, Sr., based on having lived separate and apart continuously for more than one year under La.R.S. 9:301.
- Henry Adams, Sr., through counsel, filed exceptions of no right of action and no cause of action.
- After a trial on the merits, the trial court ruled in favor of Henry Adams, Sr., denying Juanita Adams a divorce, concluding that the initial separation required both parties to be sane.
- Juanita Adams appealed the trial court's ruling to the Court of Appeal, where she was the appellant and Henry Adams, Sr. was the appellee.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling for the same reasons, relying on previous jurisprudence.
- Juanita Adams applied for and was granted writs by the Louisiana Supreme Court to review the lower court judgments, where she was the applicant and Henry Adams, Sr. was the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spouse's commitment to a mental institution on the same day as a physical separation prevent the other spouse from obtaining a divorce under La.R.S. 9:301, which requires living separate and apart continuously for one year, when the divorcing spouse clearly intended to end the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Calogero, Justice
Yes, a spouse's commitment to a mental institution on the same day as a physical separation does not prevent the other spouse from obtaining a divorce under La.R.S. 9:301, provided the divorcing spouse clearly intended to end the marriage. The Court clarified that the "living separate and apart" requirement of La.R.S. 9:301 necessitates voluntariness on the part of at least one spouse, evidenced by an intent to terminate the marital association. This intent, coupled with actual physical separation, marks the commencement of the statutory period, regardless of the initial cause of the physical separation, including one spouse's mental illness and subsequent commitment. The Court reviewed prior jurisprudence, distinguishing cases like Artigues and Levegue from Vincent, and affirming the principle that mere physical separation is insufficient without intent. It explicitly overruled Galiano v. Monteleone to the extent it was inconsistent with this interpretation, as Galiano had erroneously determined that Artigues and Levegue had overruled Vincent. The Ridell and Clark cases were affirmed in their understanding that the separation must be with the intention of at least one party to discontinue the marital relationship. In the present case, Juanita Adams' clear intent to sever the marital relationship on July 22, 1977, and her subsequent actions, such as filing a separation suit and refusing Henry's hospital visits, satisfied the "voluntary separation" requirement, making her eligible for divorce.
Concurring - Dixon, Chief Justice
Yes, the majority opinion is correct in granting the divorce. Chief Justice Dixon concurred, noting that the defendant, Henry Adams, was neither interdicted nor "notoriously insane" in a way that would incapacitate him from standing in judgment. He implied that a different outcome might be warranted if these specific factors concerning the defendant's legal capacity were present, suggesting they would introduce a different consideration not found in this case.
Concurring - Watson, Justice
Yes, the majority opinion is correct in granting the divorce. Justice Watson concurred in the result.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of Louisiana's "no-fault" divorce statute based on living separate and apart. By explicitly stating that only one spouse needs to have the intent to terminate the marital association, and that the other spouse's mental condition or commitment does not preclude the separation period from running, the court removes a substantial barrier to divorce for healthy spouses whose partners suffer from mental illness. The overruling of Galiano resolves a long-standing jurisprudential inconsistency, promoting a more consistent application of the law that aligns with the legislative intent of allowing divorces for genuinely broken marriages, regardless of specific fault. This decision underscores that the statute focuses on the objective reality of a severed marital relationship, as evidenced by intent and physical separation, rather than requiring mutual voluntariness or the sanity of both parties at the outset of the separation.
