Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Brenan v. Montz, 221 So. 2d 40.

22 citing documents.

McAlpine v. McAlpine 679 So. 2d 85 La. 1996
The first time in the jurisprudence that we find permanent alimony described as a , (1969).
Ledet v. Ledet 489 So. 2d 977 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In support of the argument, counsel for the husband cites cases holding that wives with incomes and/or assets as shown: Assets of $30,000.00, trust principal of $100,000.00, (La.
Chrisman v. Chrisman 432 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
646 , (1950) , (1969), which furnish support for his argument that she is not entitled to permanent alimony because of the equity she holds in the house.
Loyacano v. Loyacano 358 So. 2d 304 La. 1978
(1969) (dissenting opinion).
La Hood v. La Hood 340 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Knight v. Knight 331 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
More recently, , (1969), a wife with a $18,000.00 home, $6,000.00 in cash, a $6,000.00 stock equity and no income was found to have sufficient means.
Nicolle v. Nicolle 308 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
646 , , , ; Rabun v. Rabun, 232 La.
Webster v. Webster 308 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Frederic v. Frederic 290 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1969); Paddison v. Paddison, La.App., (1971).
Wood v. Wood 289 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
McAfee v. McAfee, La.App., .
Ash v. Wittenberg 278 So. 2d 921 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1973
1004 , (1957); , (1969); (La.
Hargrove v. Hargrove 272 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
646 , (1950) , (1969) are cited as authority for this contention.
Bernhardt v. Bernhardt 271 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1969), and the line of cases cited therein.
Fellows v. Fellows 267 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
(1969), our Supreme Court held that where the wife had unincumbered property valued in excess of $20,000 she was not entitled to alimony from her exhusband.
Paddison v. Paddison 255 So. 2d 504 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
(1969); Smith v. Smith, 217 La.
Worley v. Worley 247 So. 2d 254 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
(1969); Rabun v. Rabun, 232 La.
Harwell v. Harwell 245 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
1004 , (1957); , (1969).
Doughty v. Doughty 244 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1971
(1969), Rabun v. Rabun, 232 La.
Powell v. Mattyle 231 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
One of the latest cases, , (1969), held a divorced wife having no income but owning an estate valued at $30,000 had sufficient means for her maintenance.
Garrett v. Garrett 229 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
compared the provision for alimony under Article 148 (after a separation from bed and board) and under Article 160 (permanent alimony).
Leavines v. Leavines 227 So. 2d 147 La. 1969
Bahle v. Bahle 226 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
(As amended Acts 1964, No. 48, § 1.)” In support of his contention that defendant is not entitled to alimony, plaintiff relies heavily on the recent Supreme Court case of Montz v. Montz, La., (1969).