70 So. 3d 111
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Horrigan v. Horrigan involves a 1996 marriage with five children; domicile in St. Tammany Parish.
- A 2004 Motion and Consent Judgment provisioned $1,500 monthly spousal support from August 2004 through August 2014, unless Roxanne remarried or died, signed by both parties and approved by the court.
- Ms. Horrigan filed for divorce in 2003; the 2004 consent judgment addressed custody, support, visitation, and property settlement.
- In 2008, Roxanne alleged nonpayment since February 2008; the court awarded arrearages and required immediate resumption of payments.
- In 2009 the trial court held the consent judgment created a valid contract of support, not a mere judicial decree, and thus not subject to the abandonment of the related divorce action; Roy appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2004 consent judgment created a valid contract of support | Horrigan contends the consent judgment was a court judgment, not a binding contract | Horrigan argues the agreement was a contractual settlement | Yes; the consent judgment constituted a valid, binding contract of support. |
| Whether abandonment of the divorce action nullified the consent judgment | Horrigan asserts abandonment terminated all related orders | Horrigan maintains the consent judgment became final and enforceable | No; once signed within the two-year period, the consent judgment became a final judgment. |
| Whether the consent judgment modified the matrimonial regime requiring court approval | Horrigan alleges modification mandated Art. 2329 court approval | Agreement was not intended to modify the regime | No modification; not a petition to terminate or alter the matrimonial regime. |
| Whether signing without counsel vitiates consent | Horrigan argues lack of counsel negates informed consent | Horrigan freely signed with no vice of consent | No vitiation; no evidence of error in consent. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hebert v. Drewitz, 29 So.3d 607 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2009) (consent judgment validity and interpretation)
- Richardson v. Richardson, 859 So.2d 81 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2003) (contract interpretation governs intent)
- Stroscher v. Stroscher, 845 So.2d 518 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2003) (annulment for error of fact or principal cause)
- Plaquemines Parish Gov’t v. Getty Oil Co., 673 So.2d 1002 (La. 1996) (sanctity of judgments)
- Veal v. Veal, 32 So.3d 349 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2010) (appellate consideration of divorce-related judgments)
- Gray v. Gray, 862 So.2d 1097 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2003) (vitiation of consent not shown)