Pucheu v. Pucheu
2005 La. App. LEXIS 1413, 904 So. 2d 69, 2005 WL 1231783 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a spouse's fault in the dissolution of a marriage to be excused due to mental illness for purposes of final periodic support, the spouse must establish that each specific act constituting fault was caused by or involuntarily induced by their mental condition, not merely that they have a general mental illness.
Facts:
- John Pucheu and Maxine Guidry Pucheu were married on December 9, 1988.
- Maxine had a history of mental illness, including a hospitalization in 1982 for anxiety and hysterical personality disorder, and continued to work until her marriage.
- During their marriage, Maxine exhibited various behaviors described as fault, including refusing family activities, neglecting household chores, isolating herself, publicly criticizing John, not maintaining a sexual relationship, and engaging in bizarre actions like screaming tantrums and throwing objects.
- Maxine was hospitalized again in 1996 for a personality disorder and again in 2001 (after separation) for major depressive disorder and an unspecified personality disorder.
- John and Maxine separated on January 9, 2000, and were divorced on August 14, 2002.
Procedural Posture:
- John Pucheu and Maxine Guidry Pucheu divorced on August 14, 2002.
- A trial court conducted a four-day trial on the issues of fault and final periodic support.
- The trial court found that Maxine's behavior during the marriage constituted fault but held that this fault was excused due to her pre-existing mental illness.
- The trial court awarded Maxine final periodic support in the amount of $2,000.00 per month.
- John Pucheu (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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 trial court err in finding that a spouse's mental illness excuses her from fault, thereby entitling her to final periodic support, when there is no medical certainty that all actions constituting fault were caused by the mental condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Genovese, Judge
No, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that Maxine's mental illness excused all her fault, thereby entitling her to final periodic support. Louisiana Civil Code article 111 allows for final periodic support only to a party free from fault. While the trial court correctly identified Maxine's behavior as constituting fault, its conclusion that her pre-existing mental illness excused this fault was a misinterpretation and misapplication of prior jurisprudence, particularly Credeur v. Lalonde. In Credeur, there was a clear causal connection between a diagnosed schizophrenic disorder and a single act of abandonment. In Maxine's case, her treating psychiatrist could not state with any degree of medical certainty or probability that her mental illness caused all of her fault-constituting behavior. Jurisprudence, such as Gilbert v. Hutchinson and Courville v. Courville, establishes that misconduct is excused only to the extent it was involuntarily induced by the mental condition. A general mental condition, especially one with intermittent flare-ups, does not excuse all fault. The court conducted a de novo review and found that Maxine failed to meet her burden of proving that each of her actions constituting fault was involuntarily induced by her mental condition. Therefore, her fault was not excused, and she is not entitled to final periodic support.
Dissenting - Decuir, J.
Yes, the trial court correctly found that Maxine's mental illness excused her from fault, entitling her to final periodic support. The majority improperly abandoned the manifest error standard of review for factual findings, substituting its own judgment for that of the trial court. The trial court's reliance on Credeur v. Lalonde was appropriate, as Credeur held that medical expert testimony for each instance of misconduct is not required if a reasonable factual basis exists to link the mental illness to the conduct. The dissent cites Gremillion v. Gremillion, which questioned placing moral responsibility or fault on an individual whose symptomatic behavior of a mental disease caused the dissolution. Maxine's extensive psychiatric history, including multiple hospitalizations and diagnoses, and John's active involvement in her care, provided a reasonable factual basis for the trial court to conclude that her mental conditions explained or excused her conduct. The majority holds Maxine to an impossible burden by requiring specific medical evidence linking each act of misbehavior to her diagnosis over a twelve-year marriage. The trial court's findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and therefore should not have been reversed.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for excusing marital fault due to mental illness in Louisiana, moving away from a broad interpretation of a mental illness diagnosis as a blanket excuse. It places a higher burden on the spouse seeking final periodic support to demonstrate a direct and specific causal link between each act of fault and their mental condition. This ruling may impact future cases by requiring more detailed medical evidence and testimony to establish this causal connection, potentially making it more challenging for individuals with mental health conditions to obtain spousal support if their actions contributed to the marriage's breakdown.
