Short v. Short
96 So. 3d 552
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- This is an appeal by a divorced husband from a judgment awarding interim spousal support to his ex-wife, Pamela Marinovich Short.
- This Court previously vacated the district court’s interim support award and remanded for a full evidentiary hearing on needs and ability to pay.
- On remand, after a July 14, 2011 hearing, the district court ordered David Short to pay $44,968.71 (plus interest) for the period April 15, 2006 through March 2008.
- The court found Ms. Short’s monthly expenses reasonable (about $2,540) with net monthly income of $500, warranting an interim award of $2,040 per month for 23.5 months, subject to credits.
- Credits were limited to amounts actually included in Ms. Short’s expense list; housing and other large items were to be resolved in community property and child support proceedings.
- The appellant assigns error on income documentation, calculation of credits, and the award of legal interest; the appellate court affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 9:326 documentation was required and satisfied | Short argues Marinovich failed to provide verified income documentation. | Marinovich had supporting documents and the court found her need adequately established. | No reversible error; documentation deemed adequate. |
| Credits under 9:321(D) for payments by Short | Short claims entitlement to broader credits for payments affecting the award. | Credits limited to amounts actually included in Marinovich’s expense list; others belong in property/child support determinations. | Court correctly limited credits to those evidenced in the expense list. |
| Award of legal interest on interim spousal support | Interest on a newly established interim award is improper absent statutory basis in Article 113. | Legal interest is properly awarded under Code provisions governing money judgments and Article 2000. | Judicial interest properly awarded; cannot be overturned. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molony v. Harris, 51 So.3d 752 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (burden to prove entitlement to interim support; needs and means considered)
- Hall v. Hall, 4 So.3d 254 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (standard for interim support to maintain marriage-era lifestyle)
- Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 839 So.2d 368 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2003) (trial court discretion in determining spousal support)
- Lambert v. Lambert, 960 So.2d 921 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard in interims; considering means to pay)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (manifest error standard for factual findings)
- Aupied v. Aupied, 38 So.3d 899 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (mandatory interest on money judgments; Article 1921)
- Bickham v. Bickham, 849 So.2d 707 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (accrual of judicial interest on due support payments)
- Hitchens v. Hitchens, 873 So.2d 882 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2004) (consideration of total financial condition in interim awards)
- Short v. Short, 33 So.3d 988 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2010) (remanded for full evidentiary hearing on needs and ability to pay)