Cauthron v. Cauthron
2012 La.App. 1 Cir. 0913, 2013 WL 587371, 113 So.3d 232 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, a spouse is not entitled to final periodic support if their serious misconduct, such as cruel treatment, was an independent, contributory, or proximate cause of the dissolution of the marriage. The burden of proving freedom from fault lies with the spouse claiming support.
Facts:
- William Flory Cauthron and Marlene Yancovich Cauthron were married on November 17, 1986.
- During the marriage, Mrs. Cauthron misused prescription drugs, criticized Mr. Cauthron in front of his friends, and slept in a separate bedroom.
- Mrs. Cauthron's heavy smoking resulted in cigarette burns on their furniture and floors.
- She was arrested for damaging a neighbor's plants and surveillance equipment during an ongoing feud.
- When Mr. Cauthron required a heart catheterization, Mrs. Cauthron did not accompany him to the hospital, choosing to babysit her grandson instead.
- When Mr. Cauthron was later hospitalized for an ulcerated toe and faced possible amputation, she dropped him off at the hospital rather than staying with him.
- Mr. Cauthron asked his wife to accompany him to Mexico for gastric bypass surgery, but she refused, again citing her need to babysit her grandson.
- Within days of returning from Mexico alone, Mr. Cauthron filed for divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- William Flory Cauthron filed a petition for divorce against Marlene Yancovich Cauthron in a Louisiana trial court.
- Mrs. Cauthron answered the petition and requested final spousal support, alleging she was free from fault in the breakup of the marriage.
- The trial court held a bench trial on the issue of final periodic support.
- After Mrs. Cauthron presented her case, Mr. Cauthron moved for an involuntary dismissal.
- The trial court granted the involuntary dismissal, denying Mrs. Cauthron's claim for final periodic support on the grounds that she failed to prove her freedom from fault.
- Mrs. Cauthron (appellant) appealed the trial court’s judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit (an intermediate appellate court).
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 pattern of conduct, including criticizing her husband, damaging property, and displaying a consistent lack of support during his serious medical procedures, constitute 'fault' in the form of cruel treatment sufficient to bar her from receiving final periodic support?
Opinions:
Majority - Theriot, J.
Yes. A spouse's pattern of conduct can constitute fault sufficient to bar a claim for final periodic support. The claimant spouse bears the burden of proving freedom from fault, which is defined as serious misconduct that proximately caused the marriage to end. Here, Mrs. Cauthron failed to meet this burden, as her own cross-examination testimony revealed a pattern of behavior constituting cruel treatment. Her admitted misuse of prescription drugs, criticism of her husband, and property damage, combined with her repeated failure to provide support during his significant health crises, demonstrated a 'cavalier attitude towards his health' that the trial court reasonably found was the 'final straw' in the dissolution of the marriage. Therefore, the trial court's finding of fault was not manifestly erroneous.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that 'fault' sufficient to bar spousal support in Louisiana is not limited to singular, egregious acts like adultery but can consist of a cumulative pattern of conduct amounting to cruel treatment. It reinforces the high burden of proof on the claimant spouse to demonstrate their freedom from fault. The decision also underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to trial court findings of fact in domestic cases, particularly under the 'manifest error' standard of review, making it difficult to overturn such factual determinations on appeal.
Unlock the full brief for Cauthron v. Cauthron