95 So. 3d 1152
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Divorce finalized December 21, 2004; initial final spousal support awarded at $7,275.20/month for five years.
- Five-year support period expired in December 2009; Vincent II reduced to $3,000 but kept five-year term.
- April 14, 2009, Ms. Vincent moved to extend support for life; May 6, 2009, Mr. Vincent filed multiple procedural exceptions.
- December 10, 2009, trial court denied extension, granted some exceptions; Vincent II remanded to allow amendment under Art. 934.
- November 19, 2010, Ms. Vincent filed amended motion with seven new alleged changes in condition; January 21, 2011, Mr. Vincent sua sponte filed more exceptions; March 30, 2011, trial court denied most exceptions but sustained vagueness, ordered cure, and deferred no-cause action ruling.
- August 17, 2011, final judgment granted Mr. Vincent’s motion for entry of final judgment and dismissed Ms. Vincent’s amended motion to extend spousal support for life with prejudice; Ms. Vincent did not appear; costs awarded to Mr. Vincent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata applies to bar modification claim | Vincent argues Guillory allows modification; amended grounds not previously adjudicated. | Vincent contends Guillory also bars further modification claims in this context. | Res judicata properly denied; amended grounds fall outside prior adjudication. |
| Material change in circumstances justifying modification | Vincent asserts seven new medical conditions show deterioration and need for lifelong support. | Vincent argues change in condition; but no clear deterioration proven; financial impact not shown. | Court within discretion to deny modification; no proven material change in circumstances. |
| Timely service and notice for final judgment | Ms. Vincent lacked timely service and improper stay lifting affected due process. | Notice was adequately calculated; counsel informed; hearing proceeded. | Adequate notice given; trial court did not err in granting final judgment. |
| No cause of action correctly sustained against amended motion | Motion should not be dismissed; change in circumstances warranted modification. | No sufficient change in circumstances proven; pleading deficiencies persist. | Trial court properly granted no-cause-of-action exception and dismissed amended motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Guillory v. Guillory, 429 So.3d 1288 (La.App. 3 Cir. 2010) (Modification of spousal support may proceed on change in circumstances; rescinds broad res judicata effect for modification.)
- Williams v. Williams, 803 So.2d 50 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2001) (Self-serving disability assertions require corroboration to prove inability to work.)
- Poore v. Poore, 55 So.3d 953 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2011) (Art. 112 factors guide modification of periodic support.)
- Mizell v. Mizell, 920 So.2d 927 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (Article 112 factors and change in circumstances govern modification.)
- Patton v. Patton, 856 So.2d 56 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2003) (Relative financial positions are relevant; burden on movant to show substantial change.)