No. 12950 Precedential Affirmed Processed

Dean v. Dean

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed June 8, 1982 · 416 So. 2d 334

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., December 27, 1979 380 So. 2d 176

Cited by

Dean v. Dean 421 So. 2d 247 La. 1982

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Barnett v. Barnett 405 So. 2d 630
Guinn v. Guinn 405 So. 2d 620
Vidrine v. Vidrine 402 So. 2d 793
Shepard v. Shepard 334 So. 2d 745
Bernard v. Bernard 300 So. 2d 499
Nelson v. Nelson 311 So. 2d 268
Thomas v. Thomas 281 So. 2d 471
Mouton v. Mouton 372 So. 2d 771

Opinion text

GULOTTA, Judge. The defendant-husband, appealing, claims a $3,000.00 per month alimony pendente lite award for the plaintiff-wife and three minor children, ages six, four and two-and-a-half, is excessive. We affirm. The record discloses the husband’s earnings after taxes were stipulated at $90,-000.00 annually based on a before-tax income of $179,222.00; the wife’s monthly expenses for the support of herself and the minor children to permit her to continue in a life style commensurate with the husband’s income total $6,130.00; the hus *335 band’s monthly expenses total $1,200.00; and the community has an outstanding indebtedness of $42,000.00, but there is no outstanding mortgage on the newly constructed, impressive and large family home. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the amount awarded. See Barnett v. Barnett, 405 So.2d 630 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Guinn v. Guinn, 405 So.2d 620 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Vidrine v. Vidrine, 402 So.2d 793 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Shepard v. Shepard, 334 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1976); Bernard v. Bernard, 300 So.2d 499 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1974); Nelson v. Nelson, 311 So.2d 268 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974); Thomas v. Thomas, 281 So.2d 471 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973); Mouton v. Mouton, 372 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. AFFIRMED.