Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Oster v. Oster
Citations: 563 So. 2d 490; 1990 WL 71695Docket: 89-CA-0758
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 31, 1990; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
Dr. Richard C. Oster filed a rule to reduce post-divorce alimony, citing significant changes in circumstances under Civil Code Article 232. His ex-wife, Lois Wyneken, responded with a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that Oster had no right to action because the payments were either an annuity or were obligatory until her death or remarriage, as specified in their community property settlement agreement. The trial court granted this exception of no cause of action but did not rule on the summary judgment itself, indicating that the alimony had been approved within the property settlement agreement. The appellate court found that the trial court’s judgment was not a final and appealable decision since the rule was not dismissed, but chose to exercise supervisory jurisdiction for judicial efficiency. It clarified that an exception of no cause of action addresses the legal sufficiency of claims and should not replace a merits hearing. The settlement agreement stated that alimony payments of $1,350 per month would terminate upon Wyneken's death or remarriage, but did not clarify whether these payments constituted alimony or an annuity. The court noted ambiguity in the settlement language, indicating it could not definitively categorize the payments, and concluded that the trial court erred in granting the exception of no cause of action. The court also determined that Wyneken's claim for attorney's fees was unwarranted. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing Dr. Oster the opportunity to amend his petition to challenge the settlement agreement.