Holliday v. Holliday
358 So.2d 618 (1978)
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement provision that waives a spouse's right to alimony pendente lite (temporary support) during a judicial separation or divorce proceeding is null and void as against Louisiana public policy.
Facts:
- On April 26, 1963, Vertie Eagles (later Holliday) and Andrew S. Holliday entered into an antenuptial agreement.
- In the antenuptial agreement, Vertie and Andrew stipulated that there would be no community of acquets and gains during their contemplated marriage, choosing instead to remain separate in property.
- The agreement further stated that Vertie waived and relinquished any rights to claim sustenance, alimony, support, maintenance, or funds from Andrew in the event of a judicial separation or divorce.
- On May 2, 1963, Vertie and Andrew were married.
- Vertie and Andrew had minor children during their marriage.
Procedural Posture:
- On June 25, 1976, Vertie Holliday sued Andrew Holliday in a district court (trial court) seeking a separation from bed and board, custody of minor children, alimony pendente lite, and child support.
- Andrew Holliday filed an answer denying the allegations and pleading the antenuptial agreement as a bar to Vertie's right to alimony pendente lite, also reconvening for a separation.
- After a trial on the merits, the district court rendered judgment in favor of Vertie, awarding her a separation, rejecting Andrew's reconventional demand, and ordering Andrew to pay Vertie $400 per month in alimony pendente lite and $50 per week in child support.
- Andrew Holliday (defendant) appealed only the portion of the district court's judgment awarding alimony pendente lite to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal concluded that the antenuptial agreement's provision waiving alimony pendente lite was a valid and binding agreement not against public policy, and it amended the lower court's judgment to delete the award of alimony pendente lite to Vertie.
- Vertie Holliday (plaintiff-applicant) then applied for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.
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 provision in an antenuptial agreement, in which a wife waives her right to alimony pendente lite upon judicial separation, violate Louisiana public policy and is it therefore null and void?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Justice
Yes, a provision in an antenuptial agreement in which a wife waives her right to alimony pendente lite upon judicial separation is null and void as against Louisiana public policy. The court emphasized that marriage is more than a mere civil contract; it is a relationship established by law, and the state has a public interest in maintaining it. The law prescribes certain inherent rights and duties, including a husband's obligation to support his wife during the marriage's existence, as outlined in Louisiana Civil Code articles 119 and 120. A judgment of separation from bed and board terminates conjugal cohabitation and community property, but it does not dissolve the marriage itself or extinguish the fundamental duty of support, which continues until the marriage is dissolved by death or divorce (citing Boucvalt v. Boucvalt, Hillard v. Hillard, Smith v. Smith). Alimony pendente lite, authorized by La. Civil Code article 148, is an enforcement of this ongoing spousal support obligation. The court held that it is against the public interest to allow parties to use an antenuptial agreement to relieve a husband of this duty imposed by law. The policy rationale is that conditions affecting entitlement to alimony pendente lite cannot be accurately foreseen when antenuptial agreements are made, and the public interest in enforcing the legal obligation to support overrides any premarital anticipatory waiver of alimony.
Dissenting - Calogero, Justice
No, a provision in an antenuptial agreement in which a wife waives her right to alimony pendente lite upon judicial separation is not against public policy and is therefore valid and enforceable. Justice Calogero argued that the contract was entered into prior to marriage, when the parties had full contractual capacity, and Louisiana Civil Code article 2325 permits antenuptial stipulations as long as they are not contrary to good morals or express prohibitions. Since the Civil Code does not expressly prohibit a waiver of alimony pendente lite, and if a stipulation is neither expressly nor impliedly prohibited, nor contrary to public good, a party should be free to renounce rights (C.C. art. 11). The dissent contended that alimony pendente lite is not one of the 'mutual' duties of support under C.C. art. 119, nor is it the support owed under C.C. art. 120 (for a wife living with her husband), referencing Williams v. Williams, which explained alimony pendente lite as a non-reciprocal protection for wives concerning community property control. This rationale is less relevant when spouses, as here, are separate in property and the wife maintains control over her assets. The dissent also rejected the majority's inference that alimony pendente lite is essential to prevent a wife from becoming a social burden, calling this attitude demeaning and inconsistent with modern realities where women are often capable of financial independence. The paramount importance of freedom of contract should prevail, as the waiver serves an individual benefit and is not contrary to public order or good morals. Prior jurisprudence had not conclusively resolved this issue, and Nelson v. Walker's discussion on the substantive validity of such waivers was considered obiter dictum.
Dissenting - Summers, Justice
Justice Summers dissented for the reasons assigned by Justice Calogero.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of contractual freedom within antenuptial agreements in Louisiana family law. It establishes that while parties are largely free to contract before marriage, certain fundamental marital duties, particularly spousal support during the marriage's existence (including during separation proceedings), are matters of public policy and cannot be waived. The ruling reinforces the state's interest in protecting the institution of marriage and preventing spouses from potentially becoming public charges. Legal practitioners will need to advise clients that premarital waivers of temporary spousal support are unenforceable, influencing the drafting and enforcement of future antenuptial agreements. The case also provides a framework for analyzing whether other contractual provisions related to marital obligations might similarly violate public policy.
