McFaull v. Arnoult
1997 La. App. LEXIS 328, 96 La.App. 5 Cir. 730, 690 So. 2d 101 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Adultery can be proven by circumstantial evidence that leads fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that adultery has been committed, and an appellate court will afford great deference to a trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations unless manifest error is shown.
Facts:
- Patricia and Elden Arnoult were married on August 13, 1966.
- Patricia and Elden Arnoult physically separated on March 10, 1995.
- On May 13, 1995, private investigators observed Patricia Arnoult and Whitney Duplantis leaving a lounge at 3:50 a.m., hugging and kissing outside her car for 35 minutes, then moving inside the car and continuing to embrace until 5:55 a.m., with their heads occasionally disappearing from view; Duplantis exited buttoning his shirt and rearranging his clothes.
- On May 21, 1995, investigators observed Patricia Arnoult and Whitney Duplantis dancing and kissing in the lounge, leaving at 2:10 a.m., kissing in Patricia Arnoult’s car for about 45 minutes, and then Patricia Arnoult followed Duplantis to his house, arriving around 3:20 a.m.
- Patricia Arnoult and Whitney Duplantis walked down the driveway and entered his house toward the rear, and investigators testified they saw no lights come on and no one else enter or exit the house.
- At about 5:30 a.m., Patricia Arnoult exited the house alone and returned to her apartment.
- Patricia Arnoult and Whitney Duplantis later testified that on May 21, they went to Taco Bell, then to Duplantis's house to eat, watch television, and that he fell asleep before Patricia Arnoult left, both denying any sexual intercourse or oral sex on either occasion.
Procedural Posture:
- Patricia Arnoult filed a Petition for Divorce and Incidental Matters on March 13, 1995.
- Elden Arnoult filed an Answer and Reconventional Demand on March 14, 1995, requesting a divorce under C.C. Art. 102.
- On August 25, 1995, Elden Arnoult amended his petition, alleging Patricia Arnoult was guilty of adultery.
- The matter came for trial on May 3, 1996, and the trial court found Patricia Arnoult guilty of adultery.
- Patricia Arnoult appealed the judgment of the trial court.
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 circumstantial evidence, including private investigator testimony of intimate conduct and late-night visits, provide sufficient proof of post-separation adultery to support a divorce judgment, even when the accused party denies the act?
Opinions:
Majority - IzDALEY, Judge
Yes, circumstantial evidence, especially when it includes admitted acts of sexual foreplay and is supported by a trial court's credibility findings, can constitute sufficient proof of post-separation adultery. The court noted that adultery's secretive nature often necessitates reliance on circumstantial evidence, and a prima facie case can be established by facts that 'lead fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that adultery has been committed.' While investigator testimony should be viewed with caution and ideally corroborated, it can, by itself, form a prima facie case if found credible. Here, the trial court found the investigators more credible than Patricia Arnoult and Duplantis, particularly considering their admitted hugging and kissing, the late-night visit to Duplantis's residence, and the trial court's ability to assess their demeanor during their denials. Given the evidence of clear sexual foreplay and the trial court's credibility determination, the appellate court found no manifest error in the finding of adultery.
Dissenting - GAUDIN, Judge
No, the evidence presented was far from legally sufficient to prove post-separation adultery. Judge Gaudin argued that the two alleged acts of adultery occurred within brief time periods, and both Patricia Arnoult and her friend denied that any adultery took place, providing detailed explanations for their actions. The dissent highlighted that the trial judge relied exclusively on the testimony of two hired private investigators who provided no supporting photographs or video. While admitting to hugging and kissing in a car and being in an apartment for approximately two hours, their explanations (eating, watching television, and the friend falling asleep) were plausible. Judge Gaudin concluded that despite the deference typically given to a trial judge's factual conclusions, there was clear reversible error in this case due to the insufficiency of the evidence.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the deference appellate courts grant to a trial court's factual findings, particularly its credibility assessments in divorce cases involving adultery. It underscores that direct evidence of sexual intercourse is not required; strong circumstantial evidence, even solely through investigator testimony, can be sufficient if the trial judge finds it credible and persuasive. The ruling demonstrates that admissions of intimate physical contact combined with secretive late-night visits to a private residence, when believed by the trial court over denials, can establish adultery. The case serves as a precedent affirming the challenges and standards of proof in establishing adultery, especially in the absence of direct evidence.
