Millon v. Millon
352 So. 2d 325 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Reconciliation, which negates grounds for divorce based on a period of separation, requires a voluntary and mutual intent by the parties to reestablish their marital relationship, not merely isolated acts of sexual intercourse, especially when such acts occur under duress.
Facts:
- Margie Faciane Millon and Joseph Millon separated in February 1973, after Mr. Millon struck Mrs. Millon on several occasions.
- Following the separation, Mrs. Millon lived in an apartment with her children.
- Mrs. Millon admitted having sexual intercourse with Mr. Millon on approximately six occasions during this period but asserted she submitted involuntarily and under force.
- Mrs. Millon denied ever inviting Mr. Millon to her apartment or discussing reconciliation, and she called the police on several occasions.
- Mr. Millon claimed reconciliation through 'actions' on 10 to 15 occasions, stating Mrs. Millon 'wouldn't object too much at certain times' and on the last occasion 'she didn't put up no kind of resistance, hardly'.
- Mr. Millon admitted he 'used force . . . with restraint' and that Mrs. Millon never requested intercourse.
- Mr. Millon also conceded there was never a mutual agreement between them to reestablish their former marital relationship.
- The couple's oldest daughter testified that during one incident in August 1975, she heard her parents arguing through the bedroom door and her mother yelling for her father to leave.
Procedural Posture:
- Margie Faciane Millon filed a suit for divorce against Joseph Millon in a trial court (court of first instance).
- The trial court granted Mrs. Millon a judgment of divorce.
- Joseph Millon, the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit (intermediate appellate court), arguing that reconciliation had occurred during the period of separation.
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 the occurrence of isolated acts of sexual intercourse, some involving force, during a period of separation between spouses, constitute a reconciliation that prevents a divorce based on separation?
Opinions:
Majority - Lemmon, Judge
No, isolated acts of sexual intercourse, particularly when involuntary or under force, do not constitute reconciliation sufficient to prevent a divorce based on a period of separation. Reconciliation is defined as the voluntary resumption or reestablishment of the relationship that formerly existed between the parties, requiring a mutual intention by the parties to voluntarily resume their marital relationship, as determined from the totality of the circumstances. While sexual intercourse constitutes strong evidence, one or several isolated acts are not conclusive, especially when voluntariness and mutual intent are lacking. The court noted that an absolute rule deeming one act of intercourse as reconciliation would discourage genuine reconciliation attempts due to the fear of losing accrued grounds for divorce. Here, the acts of intercourse occurred under force, and the parties did not attempt to reestablish a matrimonial domicile or otherwise indicate an intent to resume marital status. The trial court's finding of no meaningful marital relationship was supported by the evidence.
Concurring - Schott, Judge
No, the acts of intercourse in this case did not constitute reconciliation because the wife's participation was not voluntary. Judge Schott concurred with the majority's result, specifically relying on the trial judge's conclusion, supported by the record, that Mrs. Millon's acts of intercourse were not voluntary.
Analysis:
This case clarifies that reconciliation in divorce proceedings under Louisiana law requires more than mere sexual contact, especially if coerced. It emphasizes the importance of mutual, voluntary intent to reestablish a full marital relationship, preventing strategic manipulation where one spouse might attempt to nullify grounds for divorce through isolated or forced acts of intimacy. The ruling protects a spouse's ability to pursue divorce while not discouraging genuine reconciliation attempts, by ensuring that any such attempt doesn't inadvertently extinguish valid grounds for separation if it doesn't lead to a full resumption of marital life.
