Bennett v. Bennett
349 So. 2d 909 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Adultery can be established through strong circumstantial evidence from which no other reasonable conclusion can be drawn, even against self-serving denials of consummation. Under Louisiana law, a spouse found at fault in a prior judgment of separation is generally precluded from receiving post-divorce alimony, regardless of the other spouse's post-separation fault.
Facts:
- Elmer F. Bennett obtained a judgment of separation against Phyllis Ann Hollibaugh Bennett in 1974 on the ground of her habitual intemperance.
- Subsequently, Elmer F. Bennett began dating Mrs. Joan Burton.
- Elmer F. Bennett and Mrs. Burton took trips together, some with family members and some alone.
- Elmer F. Bennett and Mrs. Burton admitted occupying one room overnight in hotels and motels on multiple occasions.
- Elmer F. Bennett admitted attempting sexual intercourse with Mrs. Burton but claimed he failed due to impotence resulting from a vasectomy.
- Elmer F. Bennett, an airline pilot, was otherwise in good health and did not mention his alleged impotence in his deposition, despite its relevance to questioning.
- Mrs. Burton denied any sexual intercourse with Elmer F. Bennett.
Procedural Posture:
- Phyllis Ann Hollibaugh Bennett (plaintiff) sued Elmer F. Bennett (defendant) in a trial court for divorce on the grounds of adultery.
- Elmer F. Bennett reconvened, seeking a divorce based on living separate and apart for one year without reconciliation after a judgment of separation.
- The trial court dismissed Phyllis Ann Hollibaugh Bennett's demand and granted judgment in favor of Elmer F. Bennett on his reconventional demand.
- Phyllis Ann Hollibaugh Bennett appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit, as the appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does circumstantial evidence, including admissions of overnight stays in shared rooms and attempts at intercourse, sufficiently prove adultery despite a self-serving denial of consummation due to impotence? 2. Is a wife, previously found at fault in a separation proceeding, entitled to post-divorce alimony when she subsequently obtains a divorce based on her husband's adultery?
Opinions:
Majority - Ponder, J.
1. Yes, the trial court erred in holding Elmer F. Bennett was not guilty of adultery. The court determined that Elmer F. Bennett's admitted conduct, including taking trips, occupying shared hotel rooms overnight with Mrs. Burton, and attempting sexual intercourse, constituted overwhelming circumstantial evidence of adultery. The court rejected his self-serving denial of consummation based on claimed impotence, noting the lack of medical evidence to support it and his failure to mention it previously. The court concluded that no reasonable conclusion other than an adulterous relationship could be drawn from the evidence, finding the trial judge's acceptance of the denials to be manifestly erroneous. 2. No, Phyllis Ann Hollibaugh Bennett does not have the right to post-divorce alimony. LSA-C.C. Article 160 requires that the wife "has not been at fault" to be eligible for alimony. Since Phyllis Ann Hollibaugh Bennett was previously found to be legally at fault in the separation proceedings (due to habitual intemperance), that prior determination of fault precludes her from receiving post-divorce alimony, despite Elmer F. Bennett's subsequent adultery. The court referenced Fulmer v. Fulmer in its interpretation of Article 160, asserting that fault judicially determined to be the cause of separation is normally determinative of the issue of fault for alimony purposes.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for proving adultery through circumstantial evidence in Louisiana, establishing that a party's self-serving denial of consummation, especially without corroborating medical evidence, may be insufficient to overcome compelling evidence of opportunity and intent. Furthermore, it reinforces the enduring effect of a prior finding of fault in a separation judgment on subsequent claims for post-divorce alimony, even when the divorce itself is granted due to the other spouse's post-separation misconduct. This ruling underscores the importance of the initial fault determination in separation proceedings and limits avenues for alimony for spouses found at fault.
