Stowe v. Stowe
162 So. 3d 638
La. Ct. App.2015Background
- Parties: Luther (appellant) and Charleen Stowe, divorced after a 25-year marriage; Charleen sought final periodic spousal support by reconventional demand.
- Hearing: March 10, 2014; testimony from both spouses and Luther’s daughter; no documentary financial evidence was introduced.
- Facts relevant to support: Charleen receives Social Security Disability (~$639.90 gross; $535 net after Medicare), is age 58, has multiple medical issues and limited work capacity; she has lived with relatives/friends and estimates monthly shortfall including future housing costs.
- Luther’s income: testified as a truck driver earning about $52,000–$53,000/year; he pays a $300 car note and was delinquent on that obligation.
- Trial court: found Charleen free from legal fault, disabled and unable to earn sufficient income, estimated Luther’s net monthly income and awarded Charleen $750/month final periodic spousal support (retroactive), denied credit for car note/insurance toward alimony, and assessed appeal costs to appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Charleen) | Defendant's Argument (Stowe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fault for divorce | Charleen argued Luther’s infidelity caused breakup; she claimed no legal fault. | Luther contended Charleen failed to prove freedom from fault. | Court found Luther’s relationship was the superseding cause; Charleen free from legal fault. |
| Need / earning capacity | Charleen asserted disability and lack of earning capacity; testified to monthly shortfall and expenses. | Luther argued Charleen’s testimony alone was insufficient to prove need or inability to work. | Court accepted Charleen’s SSDI and testimony; found she lacked earning capacity and demonstrated need. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of income/expenses | Charleen relied on testimony; no documentary support filed. | Luther argued statute/local rules required verified income statements and documentation; testimony alone insufficient. | Court held testimony was adequate; trial court discretion not abused despite lack of documents. |
| Credit for car payments and insurance | Charleen retained the car; argued payments should not offset support. | Luther sought credit for car note and insurance payments toward support. | Court denied credit against alimony for car payments/insurance (these issues more properly handled in community property settlement). |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. King, 136 So.3d 941 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2014) (fault threshold and definition for spousal support)
- Hunter v. Hunter, 21 So.3d 1032 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2009) (legal fault standard for alimony)
- Richards v. Richards, 147 So.3d 800 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2014) (purpose and limits of final periodic support)
- Short v. Short, 96 So.3d 552 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2012) (testimony alone can support interim spousal support when needs are established)
- Thompson v. Thompson, 428 So.2d 858 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1983) (car payments may be excluded from alimony credits and addressed in community property settlement)