Faucheux v. Faucheux
91 So. 3d 1119
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Faucheux filed for divorce after almost 30 years of marriage; divorce granted January 6, 2011.
- Prior to divorce, the parties executed a consent judgment on January 13, 2011 granting exclusive use of the home to Faucheux and ordering interim spousal support of $1,500/month plus $1,000 mortgage payment, with a prohibition on disposing community property.
- On May 6, 2011, Faucheux’s motion sought final periodic spousal support; after a hearing, the court awarded Deidre final periodic spousal support of $1,700/month beginning July 2011.
- Faucheux appeals the amount and reliance on the standard used to determine the award, not fault allocation.
- The trial court’s final order states $1,700/month, with no mortgage payment obligation imposed in the final order; reasons for judgment are not part of the signed judgment.
- Court emphasizes final spousal support is for maintenance of necessities, not maintaining marital lifestyle; awards may be modifiable and are not automatically time-limited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether $1,700/mo exceeds one-third of deduct net income | Faucheux argues the total would exceed Art. 112's cap when including mortgage | Faucheux’s interpretation relies on the mortgage being included; final order only requires $1,700/mo | No abuse; amount does not exceed one-third of net income |
| Whether trial court applied correct standard for amount | Award based on lifestyle rather than maintenance needs | Court properly used maintenance standard; not maintaining lifestyle | Correct standard applied; award reflects maintenance needs |
| Whether trial court correctly addressed Ms. Faucheux’s earning capacity | Ms. Faucheux could earn substantially more than $600/mo | Earning capacity appropriately limited by age, education, and market; no imputation beyond $600 | No error; trial court properly considered earning capacity and did not over-impute income |
| Whether duration of final spousal support was properly considered | Should have a term or rehabilitative component | Courts may award uncapped duration; Art. 112 permits non-term awards | No error in not imposing a fixed term or rehabilitative award |
Key Cases Cited
- Noto v. Noto, 41 So.3d 1175 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (factors for amount consider income, needs, and ability to pay)
- Dufresne v. Dufresne, 65 So.3d 749 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2011) (maintenance limited to necessities, not lifestyle)
- Falterman v. Falterman, 726 So.2d 1023 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1999) (earning capacity as a factor and difficulty in finding employment)
- Voyles v. Voyles, 901 So.2d 1204 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) (court may restrict final spousal support by term, but not required)
- Guillory v. Guillory, 29 So.3d 1288 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2010) (duration considerations and term limitations discussed)
- Smith v. Smith, 31 So.3d 453 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2010) (awards of final spousal support may be uncapped in duration)