Loyacano v. Loyacano
358 So. 2d 304 (1978)
Rule of Law:
Louisiana Civil Code Article 160, which authorizes post-divorce alimony solely for wives, is constitutional under state and federal equal protection clauses as its gender classification is not arbitrary or unreasonable. A trial court's discretion in determining the sufficiency of means for a wife's maintenance and the amount of alimony will be affirmed unless arbitrary or wilful, requiring consideration of all relevant factors but not necessarily complete asset depletion.
Facts:
- In 1971, Neila LeBlanc Loyacano was granted a divorce from Dr. Eugene Loyacano on the grounds of living separate and apart for two years.
- The default divorce judgment provided Mrs. Loyacano with $1,000 per month alimony and $1,000 per month for the support of their two minor children.
- Dr. Loyacano voluntarily supplemented these payments with extra sums which were discontinued upon his remarriage in February of 1974.
- Mrs. Loyacano filed a rule to increase both the alimony and child support awards in May of 1974.
- At the time of trial in October 1975, Mrs. Loyacano owned assets including $20,000 in savings and loan certificates of deposit, $1,200 in bank accounts, $2,500 in pension fund contributions, $5,625 in corporate stock, a 1974 automobile (original cost $5,300), a 1975 automobile (original cost $5,500), and a house valued at $41,500.
- Her liabilities included $28,500 indebtedness secured by a mortgage on the house and a $6,000 certificate of deposit pledged to finance the purchase of an automobile.
- Dr. Loyacano had previously given Mrs. Loyacano $25,000 in cash, part of which was used for a down payment on her house.
- Mrs. Loyacano had elected to be a full-time mother and homemaker and was not otherwise employed at the time of the trial, although she had been a wage earner in the past.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1971, Mrs. Neila LeBlanc Loyacano was granted a default divorce from Dr. Eugene Loyacano by a Louisiana district court.
- The district court's default divorce judgment awarded Mrs. Loyacano $1,000 per month alimony and $1,000 per month for child support.
- In May 1974, Mrs. Loyacano filed a rule (motion) in the district court to increase the alimony and child support awards.
- A default judgment on Mrs. Loyacano's rule was rendered on June 7, 1974, which increased the alimony and child support awards to $1100 and $1500 per month respectively.
- Dr. Loyacano subsequently filed a motion for a new trial and a rule to reduce the child support and reduce or revoke the alimony, which the trial judge denied and dismissed.
- Dr. Loyacano appealed these rulings to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which set aside the June 7, 1974, default judgment, finding no change in circumstances to justify the increases, and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration of both parties' rules.
- After hearings in October 1975, the district court awarded child support in the amount of $500 per month per child and reduced Mrs. Loyacano's alimony to $300 per month.
- Both parties appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal (Mrs. Loyacano as appellant regarding alimony reduction, Dr. Loyacano as appellant regarding child support), which affirmed the child support award but revoked the $300 per month alimony award.
- Mrs. Loyacano (applicant-plaintiff) applied for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the judgment revoking alimony, which was granted.
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. Is Louisiana Civil Code Article 160, which allows only divorced wives to receive alimony, an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws? 2. Did the court of appeal err in revoking Mrs. Loyacano's alimony award, finding she had sufficient means for her maintenance?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, C.J.
No, Louisiana Civil Code Article 160 is not an unconstitutional denial of equal protection of the laws, as legislative classifications based on sex are permissible if they are reasonable and not arbitrary. The Court holds that Article 160, which limits alimony to needy wives, is constitutional because equal protection does not require identical treatment for all persons in all matters, nor does it prohibit all classifications. The classification for wives for alimony purposes is reasonable due to present-day economic realities and has a fair and substantial relation to the legislative object of providing support. Yes, Mrs. Loyacano is entitled to alimony. A majority of this Court agrees that the trial court's alimony award of $300 per month is correct, adopting the reasoning from Section II of the original opinion. This section emphasizes that the trial judge has sound discretion in determining alimony, considering factors like the liquidity of assets, relative financial positions, and potential effects of asset liquidation (e.g., selling the family home and impact on children), and that a wife need not be practically destitute to qualify nor be required to fully deplete capital. The trial court's finding that Mrs. Loyacano had some but not sufficient means for her support and its decision to reduce, rather than revoke, alimony, fell within this sound discretion. The court of appeal's decision to revoke alimony was thus incorrect.
Concurring - Tate, J.
Yes, Mrs. Loyacano is entitled to alimony, and the Louisiana Civil Code Article 160, when properly interpreted, does not unconstitutionally deny equal protection. Justice Tate concurs in the decree, specifically for the reasons assigned by the original majority opinion. He maintains that the statute is saved from unconstitutionality on grounds of unreasonable gender-based discrimination only if the Civil Code is interpreted as a whole to grant a divorced husband in need the same alimony rights as a wife. This view suggests an expansive interpretation of the statute to achieve constitutional compliance, rather than upholding its literal gender-specific text as constitutional.
Concurring - Dennis, J.
Yes, Mrs. Loyacano is entitled to alimony, and the trial court's award of $300 per month should be reinstated. Justice Dennis concurs in the decree for the reasons stated in the original majority opinion, which held that to allow only wives to collect alimony after divorce would amount to arbitrary and unreasonable discrimination, but that Article 160 could be interpreted through equity to allow alimony to husbands under the same circumstances. He notes the considerable doubt regarding the status of Civil Code Article 160 due to the split views on the court and advocates for legislative action.
Concurring_in_part_dissenting_in_part - Summers, J.
No, Mrs. Loyacano is not entitled to alimony. Justice Summers agrees that Civil Code Article 160 is constitutional for the reasons stated by Chief Justice Sanders in the rehearing opinion, accepting that the sex-based classification is reasonable. However, he dissents from the part of the opinion that awards alimony to the wife, implying that he believes, based on the facts presented, that Mrs. Loyacano did have sufficient means for her support.
Dissenting - Calogero, J.
Yes, Louisiana Civil Code Article 160, which allows only wives (and not husbands) to claim alimony after divorce, is unconstitutional because it denies husbands equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions. Justice Calogero argues that the gender-based discrimination of Article 160 is too clear for argument and would invalidate the article without attempting to graft a constitutionally permissible alimony provision onto the law, believing that function rests with the legislature.
Analysis:
This case significantly altered the interpretation of alimony laws in Louisiana. While the original majority sought to interpret Article 160 to extend alimony rights to husbands through equity to save its constitutionality, the rehearing majority reversed course, directly affirming the constitutionality of the gender-specific statute itself under a 'rational basis' review for sex classifications. The case reinforces the broad discretion of trial judges in setting alimony amounts, emphasizing a holistic review of a spouse's 'means' that considers liquidity, the nature of assets, and the practical impact of requiring their depletion, rather than a strict monetary threshold. This nuanced approach to 'sufficient means' provides important guidance for future alimony determinations, ensuring that awards are equitable and avoid causing undue hardship or social dislocation.
