Aufrichtig v. Aufrichtig
2001 WL 946613, 796 So. 2d 57 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A post-divorce contractual alimony agreement does not violate public policy even if its terms deviate from statutory alimony rules, such as by waiving termination for open concubinage, because such agreements are considered valid contracts made after the public policy interest in preserving the marriage has ceased.
Facts:
- On July 3, 1990, Robert Aufrichtig and Sandra Aufrichtig entered into a consent judgment of divorce.
- The 1990 judgment incorporated an agreement for Robert to pay Sandra nonmodifiable contractual alimony for 520 weeks, terminable only by death, Sandra's remarriage, or her open concubinage, and also to provide her health insurance until she remarried.
- In 1996, Robert sought to terminate alimony, alleging Sandra was in open concubinage.
- On January 24, 1997, the parties entered a new consent judgment which modified the alimony to $100 per week for 172 weeks, terminable only upon the death of either party.
- The 1997 judgment stipulated that all other provisions of the 1990 judgment, including the health insurance obligation, remained in 'full force and effect.'
- In May 2000, Robert ceased providing medical insurance for Sandra.
- Prior to Sandra filing suit, Robert made a partial payment of the total amount he owed in back alimony and other payments, withholding $2,139 for which he claimed a right to reimbursement.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 31, 2000, Sandra Aufrichtig (Plaintiff-Appellee) filed a rule in the trial court to accrue past due alimony and other payments against Robert Aufrichtig (Defendant-Appellant).
- The trial court found Robert in arrears for $1,864, awarded Sandra $1,000 in attorney fees, and ordered Robert to continue providing health insurance pursuant to the 1990 judgment.
- The trial court declined to hold Robert in contempt of court.
- Robert Aufrichtig appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
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 post-divorce contractual alimony agreement that sets its own termination conditions, waiving statutory grounds for termination, violate public policy and is it therefore an absolutely null contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Kostelka, J.
No, a post-divorce contractual alimony agreement that waives statutory grounds for termination does not violate public policy. The court reasoned that such agreements are valid and enforceable contracts because they are entered into after a marriage is irretrievably broken, at which point the public policy concerns of protecting marital duties like fidelity and support are no longer relevant. The court distinguished this case from precedents like Boudreaux and Williams, which invalidated spousal support agreements made during a marriage because they were seen as undermining the marital relationship. Here, the parties bargained away certain rights, such as Robert's right to terminate alimony for open concubinage, in exchange for other benefits, like a set, nonmodifiable payment term. The court also held that Robert's obligation to provide health insurance continued because the 1997 agreement only modified the alimony provision, expressly keeping all other parts of the original 1990 agreement, including the separate insurance clause, in full effect.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that parties have broad freedom of contract in divorce settlements in Louisiana. It clarifies that public policy concerns that may invalidate support agreements made during a marriage do not apply to agreements confected post-separation or post-divorce. By drawing a clear line based on the timing of the agreement (during vs. after the marriage is broken), the ruling provides certainty for legal practitioners and divorced parties, ensuring that bargained-for contractual alimony agreements will be enforced according to their specific terms, even when those terms differ from the default statutory scheme.
