246 So. 3d 758
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- La'Vern Knowles and John David Knowles divorced in 2012 after a long marriage; later proceedings partitioned their former community property.
- Mr. Knowles filed a partition petition (2014) with a detailed descriptive list; the bench trial on partition occurred July 8, 2016 before Judge Charles Jacobs (who had previously appeared for Mr. Knowles in the divorce).
- Parties stipulated Mrs. Knowles would purchase Mr. Knowles’s interests in the matrimonial domicile and four rental properties, with 60 days to obtain financing; if she failed, realtor Jan Fry would sell and Charles Smith (former partner of Judge Jacobs) would conduct closings.
- Movable property was divided by auction; reimbursement claims (insurance, mortgage, taxes) were left open for Mrs. Knowles to document.
- Judge Jacobs was later recused because he had previously appeared for Mr. Knowles; Judge Robinson signed the partition judgment that reflected the trial oral rulings, awarding Mrs. Knowles net reimbursement of $30,666.68 and ordering the 60‑day purchase deadlines.
- Mrs. Knowles moved for a new trial and appealed after the motion was denied; she challenged the 60‑day financing deadlines, use of Charles Smith as closing attorney, auction procedures, and the handling of reimbursement claims.
Issues
| Issue | Knowles's Argument | Knowles (John) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of new trial | Trial court proceedings and partition result were unfair and contrary to law/evidence; auction rules changed midstream; reimbursement unresolved | Partition largely stipulated or auctioned; no procedural unfairness; reimbursement addressed in judgment | Denial affirmed — no peremptory or discretionary ground for new trial; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| 60‑day financing requirement & closing attorney designation | Ordering Mrs. Knowles to buy within 60 days and use Charles Smith was not agreed and is unduly harsh | She did not object at trial; no evidence she cannot comply | Issue waived on appeal for failure to object below; assignment lacks merit |
| Reimbursement claims (mortgage, insurance, taxes) | Trial court failed to rule after leaving record open for documentation; amount continues to accrue | Judgment granted specified reimbursements totaling $30,666.68 | Court held reimbursement was addressed in the March 27, 2017 judgment; assignment lacks merit |
| Mr. Knowles’s undocumented credit‑card reimbursement | He claimed $1,000 without documentation; burden of proof unmet | Credibility findings supported award; claimant’s testimony unrebutted | Credibility determinations are discretionary; award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickman v. Wm. Wrigley, Jr. Co., Inc., 768 So.2d 812 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (appellate review of new trial denial and abuse of discretion standard)
- Politz v. Politz, 149 So.3d 805 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (trial court afforded broad discretion in partition of community property)