Booth v. Samuels

Citations: 712 So. 2d 1037; 1998 WL 256996Docket: No. 97-CA-2395

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; May 20, 1998; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jan Booth's appeal against the termination of her permanent alimony from Bruce Samuels was dismissed by the judge, who upheld the district court's ruling. The court found that Ms. Booth's right to alimony ceased because she was living in open concubinage, as stipulated in their consent judgment from January 31, 1995. This judgment outlined that alimony would end upon Ms. Booth's remarriage or if she lived in open concubinage. Following Dr. Samuels' motion to terminate alimony on January 16, 1997, alleging Ms. Booth's cohabitation with Bryce North, the trial court found sufficient evidence of an open concubinage relationship. 

The court referenced the legal interpretation of “open concubinage,” which requires both a relationship akin to marriage and a lack of concealment regarding that relationship. It established that concubinage is characterized by a couple living together with the rights and privileges of marriage, while "open" implies that the relationship is neither hidden nor disguised. The judgment emphasized that mere notoriety of the relationship does not satisfy the standard of openness; rather, openness demands that the relationship be acknowledged without any pretense.

In Gray v. Gray, the court clarified that the definition of 'open concubinage' does not necessitate explicit acknowledgment of a concubine as a spouse, but can be established through the lack of concealment of the relationship. The appeal centered on whether the trial court erred in finding that the facts met this definition. Ms. Booth admitted to an ongoing relationship with Mr. North, involving regular sexual relations since March 1995. She indicated that her children were rarely present during Mr. North's overnight visits and claimed he did not have unrestricted access to her home, citing health issues as a reason for his increased presence. Ms. Booth denied ever stating that Mr. North lived with her, despite taking trips together and acknowledging some attempts by Mr. North to conceal his overnight stays, such as using back exits and storing his belongings in a locked closet.

Dr. Samuels, Ms. Booth's former spouse, testified to observing Mr. North's frequent presence at Ms. Booth's home after their separation, noting his car was often there and hearing about their vacations together. The housekeeper, Dorothy Cosey, stated she had no direct knowledge of the couple living together, only occasionally seeing Mr. North at the residence. Cosey confirmed that the guest bed was used only for visitors other than Mr. North. Mr. North himself admitted to efforts to hide his overnight stays but denied cohabitation, maintaining that he had his own residence. He also expressed a desire for a non-marital relationship with Ms. Booth.

Private investigator Norman Lowe reported observing Mr. North at Ms. Booth's residence multiple times, including overnight visits. His findings indicated that Mr. North consistently entered and exited through the front door, with no evidence of him bringing bags, and noted he never saw Ms. Booth unwell during his surveillance.

An open concubinage relationship was established between Ms. Booth and Mr. North based on trial testimony. Jan Booth testified to a serious relationship lasting over a year and a half. Surveillance evidence showed Bryce North frequently parked his car overnight at Booth's home, entered with his own key, and left the next morning in different clothes, indicating an intimate arrangement. North's dog was also living at Booth’s residence. While Booth claimed illness for several months during 1996, the housekeeper contradicted her, recalling only a few sick days, and noted Booth regularly used her health club membership, which was a family plan that included North. Both Booth and North acknowledged that he kept workout clothes at her home and had a history of sharing vacations, which their families and children were aware of. 

Ms. Booth's appeals against the trial court's findings argued that the court failed to differentiate between 'open' and 'concubinage,' claimed they did not exercise marital rights or privileges, and contended the relationship was not open due to perceived concealment. The trial judge, however, found both openness and concubinage had been established, dismissing Booth's claims of concealment as unsupported by evidence. The judge's credibility assessments were given significant deference. The judge concluded that the relationship, lasting two years, closely resembled marriage, thus affirming the existence of open concubinage.

Evidence of Mr. North's relationship with Ms. Booth, including their shared health club membership, vacations, and his frequent presence at her home, supports the conclusion that Ms. Booth forfeited her right to permanent alimony. The trial judge's decision is upheld, with no indication of manifest error. Ms. Booth's inconsistent testimony and her 'malaria defense' are deemed unconvincing, especially given her ongoing health club visits and vacation planning during her alleged illness. The Louisiana Civil Code now requires a judicial finding of cohabitation in a manner akin to marriage to extinguish spousal support obligations. This change clarifies that cohabitation entails a stable sexual relationship rather than merely instances of sexual intercourse. The sons of Ms. Booth and Dr. Samuels were approximately 10 and 13 years old in March 1995, around the time Ms. Booth's relationship with Mr. North began.