Harmon v. Harmon
101 So. 3d 1122
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- After 26 years of marriage, Harmon sought a divorce under La.Civ.Code art. 102; Harmon answered with reconventional demand and interim support request.
- The trial court found Harmon free from fault, and ordered Harmon to pay Harmon $2,250 monthly final periodic support beginning upon judgment signing.
- Harmon appealed the fault finding and the lack of a set duration for final periodic support; Harmon answered seeking increased support.
- The trial court determined Harmon had the financial means to pay, and finalized the award with no set duration.
- On appeal, court affirmed the fault finding and duration ruling, and denied increased support requested by Harmon.
- Key legal framework involves fault analysis, Article 112 factors, and potential duration under La.Civ.Code arts. 111-115.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harmon was free from fault in the marriage dissolution | Harmon argues she was at fault | Harmon contends she was free from fault | Trial court findings upheld; Harmon free from fault. |
| Whether final periodic support must have a set duration | Harmon seeks duration set under Article 112(c) | Durational award not mandatory; court may set none | No error; duration not required; discretion to deny a set duration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (standard for reviewing factual findings of trial court)
- Barlow v. Barlow, 87 So.3d 386 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2012) (deference to trial court on fault and support awards)
- Terry v. Terry, 954 So.2d 790 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2007) (development of fault standard in domestic relations)
- Diggs v. Diggs, 6 So.3d 1030 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2009) (fact-finding on fault; credibility considered on support entitlement)
- Wolff v. Wolff, 966 So.2d 1202 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2007) (statutory framework for final periodic support)