Jordan v. Jordan
394 So. 2d 1291 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Reconciliation between spouses is a matter of mutual intent determined by the totality of circumstances, not merely isolated acts of sexual intercourse, and effectively nullifies a prior judgment of separation. Once a prior separation is nullified by reconciliation, a subsequent departure by one spouse without lawful cause and with constant refusal to return constitutes a new act of abandonment, which can serve as grounds for a new separation from bed and board.
Facts:
- Herman Larry Jordan obtained a judicial separation from Jo Ann Ballard Jordan in February 1977.
- Around September 10, 1977, Jo Ann approached Herman to attempt to resolve their marital issues, and Herman eventually agreed to try to work things out.
- Herman moved his clothes and personal effects back into the family home shared with Jo Ann and their children.
- Jo Ann and Herman occupied the same bedroom, engaged in sexual intercourse, attended church, went out socially together, and visited parents' homes as a family.
- This period of living together and resuming marital relations lasted from September 1977 until January 6, 1978.
- On January 6, 1978, Herman told Jo Ann he was unhappy, that their attempt was not working out for him, and that he thought it was time for him to leave, despite Jo Ann being ill and requesting they discuss problems further.
- Herman moved out of the matrimonial domicile without Jo Ann's blessing, agreement, or consent.
- Jo Ann subsequently made numerous requests for Herman to return and live with her, but he refused, stating by phone that he was 'not interested' in returning.
Procedural Posture:
- Herman Larry Jordan obtained a judicial separation from bed and board from Jo Ann Ballard Jordan in February 1977.
- Jo Ann Ballard Jordan filed an original petition for separation from bed and board against Herman Larry Jordan, alleging abandonment subsequent to a reconciliation that nullified the February 1977 judgment.
- Herman Larry Jordan filed an answer denying reconciliation and asserted the validity of the February 1977 judgment, simultaneously filing a reconventional demand (counterclaim) for separation on the ground of cruel treatment.
- The trial court (court of first instance) found in favor of Jo Ann Ballard Jordan, decreeing a separation from bed and board on the ground of abandonment, granting her custody of their minor child, and dismissing Herman Larry Jordan's reconventional demand.
- Herman Larry Jordan, as defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First 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:
Did the trial court err in finding that a reconciliation occurred between Herman Larry Jordan and Jo Ann Ballard Jordan, thereby nullifying their previous judicial separation and allowing for a new separation claim based on subsequent abandonment?
Opinions:
Majority - Covington, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in finding that a reconciliation occurred between Herman Larry Jordan and Jo Ann Ballard Jordan, nullifying their previous judicial separation and validating the claim for a new separation based on subsequent abandonment. The court's jurisprudence establishes that reconciliation is a matter of mutual intent, judicially determined by considering the totality of circumstances in each particular case, where isolated acts of sexual intercourse are merely one factor, not conclusive proof (Halverson v. Halverson; Millon v. Millon). For reconciliation to break the continuity of separation, the overall circumstances must demonstrate a mutual intention by the parties to voluntarily resume their marital relationship. The record supports the trial court's finding of reconciliation, which is primarily a question of fact not to be disturbed unless manifestly erroneous. Evidence showed the parties reestablished a single marital domicile, Herman moved his belongings back, they occupied the same bedroom, engaged in sexual intercourse, and participated in social and family events together. Herman himself conceded his intention was to 'patch up the marriage' and 'resume your husband and wife relationship.' This reconciliation, lasting from September 1977 to January 1978, extinguished the February 1977 judgment of separation (LSA-C.C. art. 152; Hickman v. Hickman). Furthermore, the court found that Herman abandoned Jo Ann as LSA-C.C. art. 143 authorizes separation when a spouse leaves the matrimonial domicile without lawful cause and constantly refuses to return. Herman moved out on January 6, 1978, without lawful cause and steadfastly refused Jo Ann's requests to return, which was corroborated by their son. Therefore, the trial court's decree of separation on the ground of abandonment in favor of Jo Ann was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the Louisiana judiciary's emphasis on the 'totality of circumstances' standard for determining spousal reconciliation, highlighting that mutual intent is paramount and cannot be inferred solely from isolated physical acts. It clarifies that a genuine reconciliation effectively nullifies prior separation judgments, thereby allowing for subsequent legal actions based on new grounds if the marital relationship deteriorates again. The ruling also underscores the significant deference appellate courts give to trial courts' factual findings, particularly concerning intent in domestic disputes, unless those findings are manifestly erroneous, influencing how attorneys must prove or disprove reconciliation.
