Chi v. Pang
1994 WL 541526, 643 So.2d 411 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When spouses are living separate and apart but have not initiated divorce proceedings, a court may award spousal support based on the claimant spouse's needs and the other spouse's means, aiming to maintain the economic status quo, without requiring the claimant to establish 'necessitous circumstances.'
Facts:
- Chour Pang allegedly attacked his wife, Lichi Chi, with a butcher knife, causing injuries to her throat, hands, and face.
- Criminal charges are pending against Chour for the attack, and a court order required him to live outside of Louisiana.
- Due to the attack, university officials requested Chour to retire from his position as an associate professor at the University of Southwestern Louisiana.
- Lichi refused to sign the necessary paperwork for Chour to initiate his retirement, preventing him from receiving approximately $2,000 per month in retirement benefits.
- At the time of the hearing, Chour was unemployed but had $10,000 in cash savings.
- Lichi was receiving $289 monthly in social security disability benefits and had applied for an additional $166 for her monthly home mortgage payment.
- Lichi was under contract to work as a substitute teacher for $50 per day but was unable to work due to physical injuries sustained from the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Lichi Chi filed a petition for protective orders (and also sought spousal support) against Chour Pang in the trial court.
- The trial court ordered Chour Pang to pay Lichi Chi $1,000 monthly support.
- Chour Pang appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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:
Is a spouse seeking support while living separate and apart but not yet divorced required to establish 'necessitous circumstances' to be entitled to support, or is the proper standard based on the needs of the claimant spouse and the means of the other spouse, aiming to maintain the economic status quo, and was the trial court's determination of the amount of support excessive?
Opinions:
Majority - knoll, judge
No, a spouse seeking support while living separate and apart but not yet divorced is not required to establish 'necessitous circumstances'; instead, the proper standard is based on the needs of the claimant spouse and the means of the other spouse, aiming to maintain the economic status quo, and the trial court's determination of the amount of support was not excessive. The court clarified that while Lichi's petition was filed under protective order statutes (LSA-R.S. 46:2131 et seq.), the trial court had the authority to award spousal support under LSA-R.S. 9:291, which allows spouses living separate and apart to sue for support and does not impose a fixed time limit like protective orders. The underlying codal basis for support is LSA-C.C. Art. 98, stating that married persons owe each other fidelity, support, and assistance. The court explicitly rejected Chour's argument that 'necessitous circumstances' was the applicable standard, distinguishing Smith v. Smith. It agreed with Professor Blakesley that support in a non-divorce setting should be analyzed under the standard of LSA-C.C. Art. 111, which provides for an award 'proportioned to the needs of the claimant spouse and the means of the other spouse in order to maintain the status quo.' The court found it 'nonsensical' to require a claimant spouse to establish necessitous circumstances when the marriage is not dissolved. Regarding the amount of support, the court held that a trial court's assessment of a witness's credibility and determination of economic needs are subject to the manifest error standard of review and should not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. The trial court did not blindly accept Lichi's estimates but reduced her requested amount from $1,941.86 to $1,000, and its findings were supported by the record. The court also found no merit in Chour's contention that Lichi was not entitled to support because she was employable, given her medical problems related to his attack, nor did her refusal to sign his retirement papers amount to recalcitrance precluding support.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the legal standard for spousal support when spouses are physically separated but not yet pursuing divorce. It definitively rejects the 'necessitous circumstances' requirement in such contexts, instead firmly establishing that courts should apply the 'needs of the claimant spouse and means of the other spouse' standard to maintain the economic status quo. This ensures that a spouse who needs support due to ongoing marital duties, even without a pending divorce, can receive it without facing a higher burden of proof. The ruling underscores the broad discretion of trial courts in determining support amounts, subject only to a manifest error review standard, and that a spouse's actions in refusing to sign documents must reach a high level of recalcitrance to justify denial of support.
