Thompson v. ThompsonThompson v. Thompson
In this case, Mrs. Louise Azelie Mouton Thompson was awarded a divorce from her husband, Charles David Thompson. She was also awarded the custody of their five minor children and child support in the amount of $4,000.00 per month.
Mr. Thompson appeals from the judgment only insofar as it relates to the award of child support.
The sole issue before this court is whether or not the trial judge abused his discretion in fixing the child support.
In his appeal, Mr. Thompson seeks to have the child support reduced to $2,500.00 per month. Mrs. Thompson answered the appeal and asked that it be increased to $6,000.00 per month.
At trial, the financial situations of both parents were thoroughly developed.
Since this case was tried in 1982, great emphasis was placed on the 1981 income оf both parties. The 1981 adjusted gross income of Mrs. Thompson, who is a housewife, was $128,061.00. This included interest earned frоm certificates of deposit and from revenues from the sale of her separate propеrty. After 1981 she anticipated receiving an additional, last payment of $10,-000.00 from the sale of her propеrty, plus approximately $20,000.00 per year interest earned on certificates of deposit. She has оther, non-revenue producing property which is burdened with a usufruct in favor of her mother.
Mrs. Thompson is not emрloyed and is responsible for rearing the minor children, the youngest of which is only four years of age.
Mr. Thompsоn is a highly successful stock broker and financial consultant, with investments in oil properties. His gross income for 1981 exceeded $200,000.00.
Mrs. Thompson sought $4,500.00 per month as support for her minor children, and filed an affidavit reflecting $11,364.69 needed monthly for the support of the children. This affidavit included several items clearly not attributable to the support of the children, which may explain why Mrs. Thompson reduced her demands. It is undisputed that the Thompson family is an affluent one, and that the children are maintained in a high standard of living.
In the case of Ducote v. Dacote,
"Louisiana Civil Code Article 227 provides that parents have'the obligation to support, maintain, and educate their children. This support shall be granted in proportion to the needs of the child and the circumstances of the parent who is to рay. LSA-C.C. Art. 231. If the parents are divorced and the children are living with their mother, the children are entitled to the same standard of living as if they resided with their father whenever the financial circumstances of the father pеrmit. Wilmot v. Wilmot,223 La. 221 ,65 So.2d 321 (1953); Sarpy v. Sarpy, La. App.,323 So.2d 851 (1975), cert. denied, La.,328 So.2d 166 (1976); Phillips v. Phillips, La.App.,319 So.2d 566 (1975).”
Also see Prudhomme v. Prudhomme,
The jurisprudence is well settled that the trial court is vested with wide discretion in fixing child support, and the exеrcise of this discretion will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Goux v. Goux,
Although both parents owe a mutual obligation of support to their children, the trial court was obviously convinced that Mr. Thompson can afford to contribute mоre money to the support of the children and that Mrs. Thompson’s contribution necessarily included the responsibilities, duties and services of a mother toward her young children.
As aforementioned, the trial court rendеred judgment awarding plaintiff an in globo award of child support in the amount of $4,000.00 monthly. Although we consider this award to be high, considering the record we cannot state that such an award for the support of five minor childrеn, accustomed to the standard of living of the children involved in this proceeding, constitutes a clear abuse of the great discretion allowed the trier of fact in such matters. However, the record in this case clearly reflects that, although the parties do in fact have five children, the eldest, Charles David Thomрson, Jr., had reached the age of majority prior to the institution of this suit and was therefore not entitled to аn award of support under the provisions of LSA-C.C. Art. 227. LSA-C.C.. Art. 37; Dubroc v. Dubroc,
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the trial court is amended so as to reduce the child support аward from $4,000.00 to $3,200.00. In all other respects, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. The costs of this appеal are assessed one-half (V2) to plaintiff-appellee and one-half (½) to defendant-appellant.
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
Notes
. Although the judgment appealed from purports to award custody of the parties’ five minor children to the plaintiff, Louise A. Mouton Thompson, the record reflects that there were only four minor children, the oldest child, Charles David Thompson, Jr., having reached the age of majority before the institution of these proceedings.