Matthews v. Matthews
2015 La. App. LEXIS 2692, 15 La.App. 1 Cir. 499, 184 So. 3d 173 (2015)
Rule of Law:
To preclude an award of final periodic spousal support, a spouse's fault must be conduct of a serious nature and an independent contributory or proximate cause of the marital separation, rather than merely imperfect conduct or habitual intemperance that does not substantially interfere with marital duties or inflict great mental anguish.
Facts:
- Todd Anthony Matthews and Dawn Rogers Matthews were married on January 24, 1987.
- During their marriage, Ms. Rogers used marijuana daily to increase her appetite and counteract anorexia.
- Mr. Matthews was aware of Ms. Rogers' marijuana consumption throughout the entirety of their marriage and did not significantly object to it until Ms. Rogers sought spousal support.
- Ms. Rogers performed all of her marital duties as a homemaker, including cleaning, cooking, washing clothes, and helping the couple's children with homework.
- In the year prior to Mr. Matthews filing for divorce, Ms. Rogers experienced poor health and underwent multiple surgeries, which diminished the couple's sexual activity.
- Mr. Matthews began communicating online with Wendy Barrios prior to the couple's separation, later began a sexual relationship with her, and eventually co-habitated with her.
- Ms. Rogers testified that she only denied Mr. Matthews' sexual advances when he was too intoxicated.
Procedural Posture:
- On September 19, 2014, Todd Matthews filed a "Petition for Divorce Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 102 Without Minor Children" in the trial court.
- On September 26, 2014, Dawn Rogers filed an "Answer and Rule for Incidental Matters" in the trial court, alleging necessitous circumstances and requesting interim and final periodic spousal support, asserting she was free from fault.
- On October 29, 2014, a Hearing Officer Conference ordered Mr. Matthews to pay Ms. Rogers interim spousal support in the amount of $2,900.00 per month.
- On March 2, 2015, Mr. Matthews filed a "Motion to Set Fault for Trial," and on March 20, 2015, a "Supplemental and Amending Motion to Set Fault for Trial," alleging Ms. Rogers was at fault and thus ineligible for final periodic spousal support.
- On April 3, 2015, Mr. Matthews filed a "Rule for Drug Testing," and on May 11, 2015, a "Rule to Show Cause Why Divorce Should Not Be Granted."
- On May 12, 2015, the trial court held a hearing on Mr. Matthews’ motions, granted the Petition for Divorce, and took the issues of fault and final spousal support under advisement.
- On June 3, 2015, the trial court signed a judgment decreeing Ms. Rogers free from fault in the dissolution of the marriage, ordering Mr. Matthews to pay final spousal support of $1,994.00 per month, and denying Mr. Matthews’ motion for costs and attorney’s fees.
- On June 8, 2015, Mr. Matthews filed a timely motion for devolutive appeal, which was granted by the trial court on June 15, 2015, appealing to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth 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:
Does a spouse's habitual marijuana use and occasional refusal of sexual intimacy, known to the other spouse for years without significant objection, constitute "fault" that proximately caused the marriage's dissolution, thereby precluding an award of final periodic spousal support under Louisiana Civil Code Article 112?
Opinions:
Majority - Fredericka Homberg Wicker
No, a spouse's habitual marijuana use and occasional refusal of sexual intimacy, known to the other spouse for years without significant objection, does not constitute "fault" that proximately caused the marriage's dissolution, and thus does not preclude an award of final periodic spousal support under Louisiana Civil Code Article 112. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Ms. Rogers was free from fault, reiterating that fault precluding support must be serious conduct violating marital duties and a proximate cause of the separation, as established in Pearce v. Pearce and Smith. While habitual intemperance or excessiveness, including marijuana use, can constitute fault (referencing McLaughlin v. McLaughlin), it must be to such an extent that it substantially interferes with marital duties or inflicts great mental anguish upon the other spouse. The evidence demonstrated Ms. Rogers fulfilled her marital duties as a wife and mother despite her marijuana use, and Mr. Matthews offered little evidence of objection until Ms. Rogers sought spousal support. The trial court found Ms. Rogers credible and sincere, while Mr. Matthews was defensive and evasive, and concluded that Mr. Matthews' relationship with Wendy Barrios was the more likely impetus for the separation. The appellate court gives deference to the trial court's credibility determinations. The court also upheld the denial of attorney's fees under La. C.C.P. art. 1472, finding Ms. Rogers admitted to drug use prior to the hearing, obviating the need for Mr. Matthews to prove it, and that the matter was not substantially important or relevant given the fault finding. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in the spousal support calculation, noting it relied on Mr. Matthews' certified financial statement and that Ms. Rogers had proven her need, which did not exceed one-third of Mr. Matthews' net income, as required by La. C.C. art. 112(C).
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high bar for proving "fault" sufficient to preclude spousal support in Louisiana, emphasizing that conduct must be a proximate cause of the marital dissolution, not merely imperfect behavior. It clarifies that while habitual drug use can be fault, it must significantly impact marital duties or cause severe distress to the other spouse to be legally consequential. The decision also highlights the substantial deference given to trial courts in assessing witness credibility and determining fault, as well as their wide discretion in calculating support awards based on financial evidence. Future cases will likely cite this decision to argue against claims of fault when the alleged misconduct was long-standing, known to the other spouse without consistent objection, and did not directly cause the marriage's breakdown.
