Allen v. Allen
648 So.2d 359, 1994 WL 708974 (1994)
Rule of Law:
Legal fault sufficient to bar a needy spouse from permanent alimony under LSA-C.C. art. 112 requires serious marital misconduct that is a cause of the marriage's dissolution, akin to the grounds for separation or divorce under former law, not merely ordinary disagreements, criticisms, or financial issues.
Facts:
- Mildred Joe Neal Allen was a healthy 42-year-old single parent with financial difficulties, including a 1977 bankruptcy, when she began dating Charles Harold Allen.
- Mildred and Charles, a bank president 20 years her senior with a substantial income, married on December 6, 1986, with Charles being aware of Mildred's existing debts.
- In August 1987, Mildred underwent gallbladder surgery and subsequently developed severe, unpredictable health problems, including irritable bowel syndrome, which ultimately rendered her unemployable.
- As Mildred's health deteriorated, the marital relationship changed; Charles closely supervised her expenditures, and they had a disagreement over an $8,000 wedding expense for Mildred's daughter.
- Mildred became convinced Charles was having extra-marital affairs and recorded telephone calls indicating sexual interest in other women, which Charles later refused to deny in deposition or at trial, stating he did not remember.
- On October 28, 1991, Charles Harold Allen left the matrimonial domicile.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Harold Allen was granted a no-fault divorce in the trial court.
- The trial court found Mildred Allen at fault based on several factors, including conflicts over donations, unauthorized credit card charges, criticisms, mishandling finances, and arguing, and consequently denied her permanent alimony.
- Mildred Allen appealed the trial court's decision to the Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's finding of fault and denial of permanent alimony (appellant Mildred Allen, appellee Charles Harold Allen).
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the court of appeal.
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 financial irresponsibility, disagreements over spending, criticisms, or general complaints constitute "fault" sufficient to bar them from receiving permanent alimony under LSA-C.C. art. 112?
Opinions:
Majority - Watson
No, a spouse's financial irresponsibility, disagreements over spending, criticisms, or general complaints do not constitute "fault" sufficient to bar them from receiving permanent alimony under LSA-C.C. art. 112. The court reversed the lower courts, holding that legal fault for permanent alimony must be serious misconduct that is a cause of the marriage's dissolution, equivalent to the grounds for separation and divorce under former law, such as cruel treatment or excesses which make living together insupportable. Petty quarrels, criticisms, and financial disagreements do not meet this high threshold. Mildred's monetary problems preceded the marriage and were known to Charles, and her bankruptcy occurred after he abandoned her. Her expenditures were not profligacy given Charles's high income. A disagreement over a stepdaughter's wedding expenses or criticisms of charitable donations does not rise to the level of legal fault. The court emphasized that a spouse need not be perfect to be free from legal fault, and isolated instances of arguing, complaining, and criticizing are common and do not generally constitute legal fault. Furthermore, a spouse's quarrelsome or hostile reaction to a perceived infidelity does not constitute legal fault, as the suspicion of infidelity is the cause of the breakdown, not the reaction. (Citing Brewer v. Brewer, Pearce v. Pearce, Vicknair v. Vicknair, Abele v. Barker).
Concurring - Kimball
No, the types of actions Mildred Allen was found "at fault" for do not meet the legal standard to prevent her from receiving permanent alimony. Justice Kimball concurred with the result, clarifying that despite the repeal of former La.Civ.Code art. 138 (which defined fault grounds for separation), jurisprudential precedents from prior cases still define "fault" for permanent alimony purposes. This judicially created definition requires "conduct or substantial acts of commission or omission by the wife violative of her marital duties and responsibilities" that are "of a serious nature" and "an independent contributory or proximate cause of the separation." The actions attributed to Mildred Allen, such as financial disagreements or criticisms, do not meet this established standard, which equates legal fault for alimony preclusion with the serious fault grounds from the former separation/divorce law. (Citing Pearce v. Pearce, Adams v. Adams, Lagars v. Lagars, Brewer v. Brewer).
Concurring - Dennis
Justice Dennis concurred with the majority's legal analysis but expressed discomfort with their treatment of the trial court's findings of fact and the application of legal principles to those facts.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying and affirming the narrow definition of "fault" required to deny permanent alimony in Louisiana after the transition to no-fault divorce. It ensures that only serious marital misconduct directly contributing to the marriage's dissolution, rather than ordinary discord or financial disagreements, will disqualify a needy spouse. This reinforces the protective policy of alimony to prevent economically dependent former spouses from becoming public charges, unless their own grave conduct caused the marital breakdown. The ruling also clarifies that reactions to suspected infidelity do not constitute legal fault, shifting focus to the initiating misconduct.
