Short v. Short
77 So. 3d 405
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Married in 1997; dispute centers on Covenant Marriage validity and education expenses for three children.
- Ms. Short filed for separation; trial court divorced them in 2008 based on alleged adultery by Ms. Short.
- Prior to remand, the trial court ruled on covenant marriage that the parties did not contract a Covenant Marriage.
- On remand (Short v. Short, 09-639), the court found David Short not liable for a pro rata share of private school tuition.
- Kehoe-France enrollment began in 2007 with annual tuition reportedly $15,000–$18,000, and Anthony and Sarah were in early grades at Kehoe-France in 2007–08.
- The court later denied tuition for Amanda (youngest child) and required separate consideration of schooling placement versus tuition as a private expense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Covenant Marriage | Short argues covenant marriage was contracted; trial court erred. | Short contends no valid Covenant Marriage exists due to missing declaration/ premarital steps. | No manifest error; Covenant Marriage denied; no valid Covenant Marriage established. |
| Private school tuition as a child-support expense | Short contends Kehoe-France tuition must be charged as a private expense due to child needs. | Short argues domiciliary parent’s choice is best; needs proof of private school necessity. | On remand, tuition not added to basic support; burden on Short to prove needs met by Kehoe-France; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Campbell, 682 So.2d 312 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1996) (tuition costs may be added to support by agreement or court order; not mandatory under statute)
- D’Aquilla v. D’Aquilla, 879 So.2d 145 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2004) (private school needs must be proven if no agreement exists)
- Lesky (State Dept. of Social Services v. Lesky), 975 So.2d 657 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (statutory interpretation of 9:315.6 generally allows needs beyond particular educational needs)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 714 So.2d 906 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1998) (burdens when rebutting domiciliary preference in school decisions)
- Milstead v. Diamond M Offshore, Inc., 676 So.2d 89 (La.1996) (deference to trial court findings; de novo review limited)
- Ex parte Sewerage and Water Bd. of New Orleans, 278 So.2d 81 (La.1973) (law-of-the-case concept and appellate reconsideration limits)