Rebecca Leigh Bloxom v. Lonnie Keith Bloxom
279 So.3d 474
La. Ct. App.2019Background
- Lonnie and Rebecca Bloxom married in Dec. 2015 and separated Nov. 24, 2017 after Lonnie was arrested for domestic battery; Rebecca later obtained a six‑month protective order after alleged additional March 2018 abuse.
- Rebecca filed for divorce (fault grounds based on domestic abuse) and requested spousal support under La. C.C. art. 112 and La. R.S. 9:327; trial was held June 26, 2018.
- Rebecca was 56, unemployed for ~4 years, living in her mother’s house, listed monthly expenses of $3,195, and retained roughly $80,000 of an inheritance; she sought maintenance for basic needs.
- Lonnie’s income evidence was incomplete; he testified to variable earnings (roughly $35k W‑2 plus trust/K‑1 and farm income) and did not produce tax returns as ordered.
- Trial court granted divorce on domestic‑abuse grounds, found Rebecca entitled to final periodic support, and awarded $925/month (covering groceries and utilities), limiting award because Rebecca had housing provided by her mother and had some liquid assets. Court denied temporal limitation; Lonnie appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rebecca) | Defendant's Argument (Lonnie) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to final periodic spousal support after domestic abuse divorce | Rebecca: Domestic‑abuse divorce mandates award; she is non‑fault and a victim | Lonnie: Challenges factual basis or scope of entitlement | Court: Rebecca proved entitlement; award appropriate under La. C.C. art. 112 and La. R.S. 9:327 (criminal conviction considered) |
| Amount of support (calculation) | Rebecca: Needs ~$3,195/month based on affidavit | Lonnie: Award should reflect his actual income; court lacked complete tax records | Court: Used available evidence; awarded $925/month based on claimant’s grocery and utilities figures and obligor’s demonstrated means; no abuse of discretion |
| Duration/permanence of award | Rebecca: sought ongoing support | Lonnie: Court erred by making a permanent/lifetime award without time limit | Court: No requirement to set term; award subject to modification or termination per La. C.C. arts. 114–115; not a permanent, untouchable decree |
| Applicability of 2018 amendment to art. 112 (mandatory entitlement → presumption) | Lonnie: 2018 amendment should govern and reduce his liability | Rebecca: Trial governed by pre‑amendment law; trial court properly applied pre‑amendment mandatory standard | Court: Amendment not applicable retroactively; even so, trial court already considered need and ability to pay consistent with revision’s clarifying intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirley v. Shirley, 127 So. 3d 935 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (needs of claimant and obligor's ability to pay govern support)
- Richards v. Richards, 147 So. 3d 800 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (final periodic support limited to maintenance, not lifestyle continuation)
- King v. King, 136 So. 3d 941 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (maintenance defined and limited)
- Stowe v. Stowe, 162 So. 3d 638 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (maintenance includes basic necessities beyond food and shelter)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 117 So. 3d 208 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (trial court discretion; earning capacity and reasonableness in depletion of assets)
- Patton v. Patton, 856 So. 2d 56 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (no exact rule on depletion of assets; apply rule of reasonableness)
- Faltynowicz v. Faltynowicz, 715 So. 2d 90 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (liquidity of assets and reasonableness in considering depletion)
- Drury v. Drury, 883 So. 2d 465 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (caution re: long‑term effects of asset depletion)