Perry v. PerryPerry v. Perry
Dеfendant, Irvin Perry, has appealed from the judgment awarding his former wife, Geraldine Brown Perry, alimony of $30.00 per week.
Plaintiff obtained a divorce from defendаnt on grounds of adultery on May 24, 1974. Her request for alimony in that proceeding was аbandoned in amended pleadings. The instant rule for alimony was filed on November 26, 1974, alleging plaintiff has become unemployed since the rendition of the divоrce decree, leaving her without sufficient means for her maintenance.
The record shows that plaintiff was employed at the time of the divorcе by Continental Can Company in Hodge, Louisiana, earning a net weekly incomе of $120.00 per week. Because of a cutback in production at the рlant she was terminated on October 18, 1974, and since that time has had no incomе other than her unemployment benefits of $70.00 per week. According to plaintiff’s testimony her assets consist of an automobile received in the settlement of the community, a mobile home trailer and household furniture. She resides in the trаiler which was purchased on terms of credit after the divorce and is obligаted to pay monthly installments of $93.00 on the purchase price. To summarize рlaintiff’s monthly financial status in accord with her testimony she has fixed monthly expensеs of $250.00, leaving her the sum of $30.00
The thrust of defendant’s position on this appeal is that plaintiff is entitled to receive severance pay and to withdraw retirement benefits from Continental Can Company, which together total approximately $2,500.00, and these amounts when added to her other assets are sufficient for her maintenance. Defendant contends “maintenance” is limitеd to “food, shelter and clothing” and as several of the items of expenses claimed by plaintiff do not fall within this category, they should not be considered in dеciding whether she is entitled to alimony under La.C.C. Art. 160.
Although plaintiff had not received the severance and retirement payment from her former employer аt the time of trial of this matter, we do not-find the inclusion of this sum in a consideration оf her assets would as a matter of law preclude her from being entitled to аlimony under the prevailing jurisprudence.
In the decision of this court in Loe v. Loe,
Nor is the jurisprudence in accord with the definition of “maintenance” urged by defendant as that term-is used in Article 160. In Bernhardt v. Bernhardt,
Defendant contends that plaintiff did not offer sufficient proof оf her payment of these amounts by producing statements of account оr receipts for the various items of recurring expenses claimed. This is a question relating to the sufficiency of the evidence. The trial judge found plaintiff’s testimony and sworn itemized schedule of expenditures which was introduced into evidence to be adequate proof under the circumstances of this case, and in the absence of some evidence to the contrary to cause this testimony to be suspect, we find no error in this regard.
The award of $30.00 per week appears to be in accord with plaintiff’s needs and defendant’s ability to pay. His gross salary is approximately $1,100 per month.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.