Daigle v. Breaux

Citation: 477 So. 2d 798Docket: 85-CA-238

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; October 10, 1985; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case 477 So.2d 798 (1985) between Lauretta Daigle and Rickey Raymond Breaux, the Louisiana Court of Appeal addressed an appeal concerning a divorce and alimony issues stemming from the couple's separation. The trial court granted a divorce based on one year of living apart but denied Mrs. Breaux's request for permanent alimony, determining she was not free from fault in the marital breakdown. The couple, married since September 1, 1972, had three children. Mrs. Breaux initially petitioned for separation in 1983, claiming abandonment. The court awarded her custody and temporary alimony, while Mr. Breaux later sought a divorce, alleging his wife's faults, which she denied, countering with accusations of his adultery.

During the July 1984 trial, the court ruled in favor of a divorce, found Mrs. Breaux at fault for the separation, and dismissed her claims against Mr. Breaux. The court maintained child support and custody but terminated alimony pendente lite. Mrs. Breaux appealed, arguing the trial court erred in both findings regarding fault and the alimony termination before the divorce was finalized. The trial judge noted both parties exhibited faults, with specific allegations against Mrs. Breaux including controlling behavior regarding Mr. Breaux's social activities and religious practices, which she denied. The evidence suggested a history of marital issues, including a structured church attendance regimen intended to mend their relationship.

Appellee testified that while he wished to save his marriage, it was appellant who encouraged him to attend church, stating, "she drug me with her to try to make me happy and make her happy." Appellee claimed that appellant threatened he could not live in her house if he did not attend church, a claim appellant denied, asserting he attended voluntarily. Appellee expressed his desire to reduce church involvement in favor of personal interests like hunting and fishing, but he faced restrictions from appellant, who viewed these activities as associating with "sinners." He noted that although he eventually participated in limited hunting trips, he was met with hostility upon returning home. Appellee recounted a particularly violent incident where appellant threatened him with a gun over his late return. Appellant, however, refuted these claims, asserting she never objected to his hunting trips or threatened him.

Both parties agree on the timing of their separation, but their accounts differ significantly. Appellee claimed he was told by appellant that she could not live with him anymore after he announced he would not attend church that night. In contrast, appellant contended that appellee stated he was leaving for personal reasons unrelated to her. The excerpt references case law from *Higginbotham v. Higginbotham*, which outlines that a spouse seeking alimony must prove their freedom from fault contributing to the separation. Fault must be serious and a proximate cause of the separation, with cruelty being one potential ground for separation under Louisiana law. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking alimony to demonstrate their lack of fault.

Cruel treatment encompasses various scenarios, including instances of religious zeal and threats of violence. Courts have recognized actions such as a wife firing a pistol to intimidate her husband as grounds for separation from bed and board, as seen in *Dejoie v. Dejoie* and *Amos v. Amos*. In *Higginbotham*, a wife's threats to her husband's life with a firearm were deemed sufficient to classify her actions as cruel treatment, establishing that living in fear constitutes intolerable conditions for cohabitation. 

Religious zealotry can also lead to claims of cruel treatment. In *Krauss v. Krauss*, a husband’s obsession with unusual religious teachings, which forced his wife to abandon her social life, was recognized as causing mental distress and humiliation, thus warranting a separation. In *Bennett v. Deweese*, the court reversed a trial court's decision that the wife was at fault for her religious fervor, noting that the husband did not express objections until after he had decided to leave. The appellate court found no manifest error in the trial court's conclusion that the wife was not at fault. It emphasized that determinations of fault are factual and should not be overturned unless clearly erroneous, highlighting the trial judge's superior position to assess credibility between conflicting testimonies.

Religious zealousness is not automatically grounds for fault; any determination must be made on a case-by-case basis. In assessing cruel treatment to establish fault, courts focus on the nature and character of the treatment rather than its origin, as highlighted in Krauss. The trial court had terminated the appellant's alimony pendente lite of $350 per month upon the divorce judgment, but such alimony continues to accrue until the final appeal decision. Therefore, the appellant's alimony must be reinstated until the matter is fully resolved. The trial court's finding of fault against the appellant is affirmed, but its decision to terminate alimony is amended to allow for retroactive reinstatement. Appeal costs are shared equally by both parties. Additionally, it is noted that during testimony, the appellee reported a threat made by the appellant, stating she would shoot him if she had a gun.