Sonfield v. Deluca
385 So.2d 232 (1980)
Rule of Law:
The mere ownership of substantial equity in a non-liquid asset, such as a home that provides shelter and a modest income, does not automatically constitute "sufficient means" under La. Civ. Code art. 160 to terminate a former spouse's alimony, especially when forcing its sale would undermine the purpose of alimony.
Facts:
- Robert I. Sonfield and Anita Deluca Sonfield divorced on June 30, 1971, with Robert ordered to pay Anita $225.00 per week in alimony.
- In 1971, after her divorce, Anita purchased a home in the New Orleans Garden District which contains a main living unit she occupies and two rental apartments.
- The rental apartments in Anita's home net less than $50.00 per month after an allocation of utilities and mortgage payments.
- Anita's home was appraised at $133,200, subject to an approximate $41,000 mortgage, resulting in about $92,000 equity.
- Anita worked as a real estate agent, earning approximately $800.00 in 1977, but her work was limited by continued illness.
- Anita resides in the home with one minor daughter (age seventeen) of her marriage to Robert, and another adult child (age nineteen) who suffered brain damage occasionally visits and occupies the home.
- Robert remarried and is the father of two minor children from his second marriage.
- Robert's income had been reduced from $70,000 per year at the time of divorce to $1,450 per month, but he was in the process of organizing his own specialized furniture business with a $300,000 loan and owned a large uptown home valued at $325,000.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert I. Sonfield filed a rule against his former wife, Anita Deluca Sonfield, in the district court (trial court) to show cause why alimony previously awarded should not be terminated.
- The trial judge refused to terminate alimony and ordered Robert to continue paying his ex-wife $225.00 per week.
- Robert appealed the trial court's decision.
- The court of appeal reversed the trial court, holding that Anita's equity in her home was "sufficient means" for her support and ordered alimony to cease after seven months, whether or not the house was sold.
- Anita Deluca Sonfield (defendant-applicant) sought and was granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the correctness of the court of appeal's decision.
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 former wife's substantial equity in her personal residence, which also generates a modest rental income, constitute "sufficient means" for her support, thereby warranting the termination of alimony under Louisiana Civil Code Article 160?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, Justice
No, a former wife's substantial equity in her personal residence, which also generates a modest rental income, does not automatically constitute "sufficient means" for her support warranting the termination of alimony under Louisiana Civil Code Article 160. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, agreeing with the trial court that Anita's equity in her home, a non-liquid asset that provides essential shelter and a modest income, should not be deemed "sufficient means" requiring her to sell the home and exhaust the equity for her support. The court reasoned that this would eventually force her to become totally dependent on Robert again and noted that her homeownership benefits Robert by preventing demands for increased alimony to cover rent increases. The court applied factors from Loyacano v. Loyacano, emphasizing the liquidity of assets. Furthermore, the court found no manifest error in the trial court's assessment that Robert's expenses from his second marriage did not negate his obligation to support Anita, and that his overall financial situation, including assets and business ventures, still allowed him to pay the alimony without it being a sufficient change to warrant termination.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the interpretation of "sufficient means" for alimony termination under Louisiana Civil Code Article 160, distinguishing between liquid assets and a personal residence. It establishes that owning substantial equity in a non-liquid asset like a home, especially one that provides essential shelter and contributes to self-sufficiency, does not automatically justify terminating alimony. The decision underscores the importance of considering the liquidity of assets and the practical impact of forcing their sale, granting trial courts significant discretion in balancing the former spouses' financial circumstances. It sets a precedent against automatically equating home equity with an immediate ability to self-support, influencing future alimony modification cases involving real estate, and emphasizing judicial deference to trial court findings on factual matters.
