You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Fairchild v. Fairchild

Citations: 537 So. 2d 1260; 1989 WL 2794Docket: 88-CA-0919

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 16, 1989; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this appellate case, the husband appeals a trial court decision mandating child support and alimony pendente lite payments. The couple, married since 1981, is undergoing separation, with the husband currently earning a salary from a surgical fellowship. The trial court initially awarded $820 monthly for child support and $180 monthly for alimony pendente lite to the wife. The husband challenges these amounts, arguing his wife's expenses are excessive and disputing her need for support given her potential employment opportunities. The court determined the child support amount using DHHR guidelines, which suggest a percentage of the husband's gross income. Although the award surpassed the guideline limits, the court justified it by noting the husband's reduced living expenses due to his current residency benefits. The court affirmed its discretion in setting child support, emphasizing the parental duty to financially support children. Regarding alimony pendente lite, the court applied Civil Code Article 148, assessing the wife's current earnings and capacity to work. It concluded that the alimony award was reasonable given her part-time employment and childcare duties. Ultimately, the court affirmed both the child support and alimony awards, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision-making process.

Legal Issues Addressed

Alimony Pendente Lite Under Civil Code Article 148

Application: The court evaluated the wife's capacity to work and her financial needs, granting alimony pendente lite as reasonable under the circumstances.

Reasoning: Under C.C. Art. 148, the court may grant support if the claimant spouse lacks sufficient income. The amendment in 1979 changed the wording from 'shall' to 'may,' allowing discretion in awarding alimony based on the claimant's needs and the other spouse's means.

Calculation of Child Support Based on DHHR Guidelines

Application: The court used DHHR guidelines to determine child support, considering both parents' circumstances and income.

Reasoning: The trial court based the child support award on DHHR guidelines, which suggest 24-29% of gross income for two children, yielding a calculated support range of $671.57 to $811.42 per month.

Court Discretion in Child Support Awards

Application: The court exercised discretion to award child support slightly above guideline limits, considering additional factors such as reduced living costs for the payor.

Reasoning: Although the awarded amount exceeds the upper limit, the trial court justified this by noting Dr. Fairchild's income might be higher and that he has free room and board, substantially reducing his living costs.

Discretionary Award of Alimony Pendente Lite

Application: The court applied discretion to award alimony, considering the wife’s current income, potential for employment, and childcare responsibilities.

Reasoning: As the custodial parent of two minors and working part-time, the court finds that an award of $180 per month is reasonable and within the trial court's discretion.

Obligation to Support Children

Application: The court emphasized the parental obligation to provide for children despite personal financial decisions or career changes.

Reasoning: The trial court emphasized that parents have an obligation to support their children, and after considering the guidelines and relevant case law, upheld the child support amount as within its discretion.