John David Moore v. Estelle Martin Moore

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-628

JOHN DAVID MOORE

VERSUS

ESTELLE MARTIN MOORE

************

APPEAL FROM THE
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF AVOYELLES, NO. 99-7266-B,
HONORABLE WILLIAM J. BENNETT, DISTRICT JUDGE

************

MICHAEL G. SULLIVAN
JUDGE

************

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Michael G. Sullivan, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

Cooks, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

AFFIRMED.

Kerry L. Spruill
Spruill Law Office, LLC
Post Office Box 977
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 240-7501
Counsel for Plaintiff in Rule/Appellant:
Estelle Martin Moore

Cory P. Roy
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 447
Marksville, Louisiana 71351
(318) 253-4622
Counsel for Defendant in Rule/Appellee:
John David Moore

SULLIVAN, Judge.

Estelle Martin Moore appeals the dismissal of her claim for spousal support

against her former husband, John David Moore, after the trial court found that the

claim was barred by a mutual release contained in their community property partition

agreement. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Discussion of the Record

John and Estelle were married on June 2, 1973. On December 2, 1999, John

filed for divorce under La.Civ.Code art. 102. Estelle reconvened seeking, among

other demands, interim spousal support, which the trial court set by judgment of

February 24, 2000 at $1,000.00 per month. On May 30, 2000, the trial court signed

a judgment of divorce. Also on May 30, 2000, John filed a petition to partition

community property that he later amended to include a request for termination of

interim spousal support. Estelle responded with a reconventional demand seeking

“permanent alimony.” After a hearing on July 10, 2000, the trial court signed a

judgment terminating interim support and awarding Estelle “permanent periodic

support” of $1,000.00 per month for a three-year period, retroactive from May 30,

2000 through May 30, 2003.

On August 6, 2000, the parties filed into the court record a document entitled

“PARTITION AND DIVISION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY REGIME WITH

ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITIES AND SETTLEMENT OF ALL CLAIMS.” In the

section entitled “THE SCOPE OF THIS AGREEMENT” the parties state that they

desire “to settle, divide and liquidate the community property regime that formerly

existed between them,” that they are satisfied with the accounting presently made, and

that they acknowledge that “they have received one-half of the net assets of the

community property regime as it previously existed between them.” The document

also contains a section entitled “MUTUAL RELEASE,” which provides as follows:

Each party disclaims in favor of the other party any claims of any
nature whatsoever with respect to the community of acquets and gains
existing between the parties, a community claim against the separate
estate of either party, a separate claim of either party against the
community of acquets and gains, or against the separate estate of the
other party, whether resulting from the purchase of property, the sale of
property, the borrowing of money, income from property, or any other
transaction of any nature whatsoever, whether arising under the laws of
the State of Louisiana or the laws of any other state of the United States.
This Agreement is not restricted to community property, but marital
property of any nature whatsoever and claims arising out of the marital
relationship, of any kind, it being the intention and agreement of the
parties that this Agreement is a full, complete and final settlement
between the parties with reference to (1) the liquidation of the
community of acquets and gains existing between the parties, (2) the
partition of community assets, (3) payment of community obligations
and other claims between the parties, (4) community claims against the
separate estate of either party, (5) the separate claims of either party
against the community of acquets and gains, and (6) separate claims of
either against the separate estate of the other spouse hereto, whether
described herein or not, and all other claims of any nature with respect
to the marital relationship or with respect to any right, title, interest or
claim in and to the property of the other or the community, arising under
the laws of any state of the United States and foreign country.

(Emphasis added.)

The agreement concludes with a section entitled “MISCELLANEOUS” that

contains the following pertinent paragraphs:

1. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, each party has
released and discharged, and by this Agreement does for himself or
herself, and his or her heirs, legal representatives, executors,
administrators and assigns, release and discharge the other, or his or her
estate, of and from all causes of action, claims, demands, rights or
demands whatsoever, in law or equity, which either of the parties ever
had or now has, against the other.

....

8. John David Moore hereby agrees as allowed by Louisiana law
not to pursue any reduction in alimony support for the remainder of the
three year term ending May 30, 2003 as ordered by this Court’s

2

judgment dated July 10, 2000 as long as Estelle Martin Moore does not
remarry, enter into open concubinage, or receive large sum of money
substantial for support, unless John David Moore suffers from some
unforeseen catastrophe, including but not limited to extreme illness,
disability, or unemployment that would render it necessary to petition
the court. John David Moore agrees not to pursue any reduction based
upon assets and property acquired by Estelle Martin Moore as a result
of this Agreement partitioning the community property between them.

(Emphasis added.)

On September 22, 2003, Estelle filed a rule seeking $1,500.00 in permanent

periodic spousal support based upon allegations that “she is without sufficient means

to support herself, and that she has no means of support at the present time.” Neither

the record nor the court minutes reflect the disposition of this rule.1 However, in a

subsequent rule for permanent spousal support that Estelle filed on May 4, 2004, she

alleges that the previous rule “was ultimately denied by the court on November 3,

2003 for the failure of [Estelle] to prove her disability from engaging in gainful

employment with medical evidence.” John then filed a motion for summary judgment

in response to Estelle’s rule of May 4, 2004, arguing that Estelle had compromised

her claim for spousal support in their agreement to partition community property. In

support of his motion, John introduced the affidavit of his former attorney, who stated

that spousal support was discussed and contemplated during the negotiations

concerning the partition agreement with the intent that John would “pay the award set

by the court without reduction absent extreme circumstances for the remainder of the

term of thirty six months, which would then terminate the spousal support

obligation.” In opposition, Estelle filed her affidavit and that of her former attorney,

1
Although the appellate record contains pleadings and court orders dating from December
2, 1999, when John filed for divorce, the record does not contain a judgment disposing of the rule
that Estelle filed on September 22, 2003, and the minutes of court before October 2004 are not
included.

3

in which they both stated that no discussion was ever held that contemplated that

Estelle “would waive spousal support for and in consideration of properties received

by virtue of the aforesaid property settlement agreement” and that it was never

Estelle’s intention to “contract away, convey, and/or waive rights to collect

permanent spousal support.”

After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court issued written reasons

agreeing with John. Specifically, the trial court found that the affidavits submitted

in support of and in opposition to summary judgment did not create a genuine issue

of material fact, as the parties’ agreement “clearly gave a full and complete general

release to one another of all claims arising from the marital relationship.” Estelle has

appealed.

Summary Judgment: Procedure

Estelle first argues that the instant matter was inappropriately decided on

summary judgment. She cites La.Civ.Code art. 969(A), which provides: “Judgments

on the pleadings and summary judgments shall not be granted in any action for

divorce or annulment of marriage, nor in any case where the community,

paraphernal, or dotal rights may be involved in an action between husband and

wife.”2 (Emphasis added.) For the following reasons, we disagree.

As explained in Allen v. Allen, 642 So.2d 202, 207 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1993),

reversed on other grounds, 94-1090 (La. 12/12/94), 648 So.2d 359 (emphasis added),

“Art[icle] 969(A) is a procedural safeguard ensuring each party the opportunity to

2
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (6th ed. 1990) defines “dotal” as: “Relating to the dos or portion
of a woman; constituting her portion; comprised of her portion.” “Dotal property” is further defined
as: “In the civil law, in Louisiana, property which the wife brings to the husband to assist him in
bearing the expenses of the marriage establishment. Extradotal property, otherwise called
‘paraphernal property,’ is that which forms no part of the dowry.”

4

present evidence and have a full hearing on all issues involving spousal property

rights.” Thus, the court in Allen held that deciding the validity of a premarital

contract was not appropriate on summary judgment because it was determinative as

to whether community or paraphernal rights existed. See also Loeb v. Loeb, 252

So.2d 516, 519-20 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1971), in which the court explained: “The purpose

of Code of Civil Procedure article 969 is to prevent collusive actions under motion

for summary judgment in suits involving the rights of married women.” The issue in

Loeb was whether a suit to enforce an obligation to pay attorney fees that was

included in a community property partition could be decided on summary judgment.

Characterizing the suit as one for the collection of attorney fees rather than as one

affecting spousal property rights, the court found that the matter could be decided on

summary judgment.

Additionally, by its terms, Article 969 applies to “an action between husband

and wife.” Based upon this language, several cases have looked to whether the

parties were married at the time the suit was instituted to determine whether Article

969 would preclude summary judgment. See Fisk v. Mathews, 525 So.2d 223

(La.App. 1 Cir. 1988); Arnona v. Algiers Homestead Ass’n, 431 So.2d 18 (La.App.

4 Cir.), writ denied, 437 So.2d 1155 (La.1983); and Loeb, 252 So.2d 516. One case

that applied Article 969 where the parties were not married at the time suit was filed

was subsequently criticized in Fisk, 525 So.2d 223. See Juneau v. Hilton, 384 So.2d

571 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1980).

Based upon the above, we find that Article 969 does not prohibit the use of

summary judgment procedure in the present case, as Estelle’s rule for spousal support

5

does not involve “community, paraphernal or dotal rights,” and it was filed after the

parties were divorced.

Summary Judgment: Merits

Estelle next argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment

dismissing her spousal support claim based upon the release contained in the parties’

community property partition agreement. She contends that a reading of the

agreement in its entirety, and more particularly the section entitled “THE SCOPE OF

THIS AGREEMENT,” leads to the conclusion that it concerns only property claims.

She also cites the absence of any reference to spousal support beyond the initial three-

year term set by the trial court as evidence of the parties’ intent that the agreement

should not affect same. John argues that Estelle’s current rule is covered by the

unambiguous language that the agreement constitutes a compromise of all “claims

arising out of the marital relationship, of any kind.”

In its reasons for ruling, the trial court characterized the community property

agreement as “clearly a transaction or compromise between the parties” that is

governed by La.Civ.Code arts. 3071-3083. In Brown v. Drillers, Inc., 93-1019, pp.

5-6 (La. 1/14/94), 630 So.2d 741, 747, the supreme court discussed the effect of a

transaction and compromise as follows:

LSA-C.C. Art. 3071 defines a compromise as “an agreement between
two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit,
adjust their differences by mutual consent, in the manner which they
agree on, and which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining,
balanced by the danger of losing.” LSA-C.C. Art. 3078 declares the
effect of a compromise, providing that a compromise has the legal
efficacy of a judgment, possessing “a force equal to the authority of
things adjudged,” and that a compromise “can not be attacked on
account of any error in law or any lesion.” LSA-C.C. Art. 3078; see
Salling Wiping Cloth Co. v. Sewell, Inc., 419 So.2d 112, 114 (La.App.
2d Cir.1982). Based on LSA-C.C. Art. 3078, a valid compromise can
form the basis of a plea of res judicata.

6

The court in Brown further recognized that the “use of a motion for summary

judgment based upon [a] release instrument [is] procedurally proper.” Id. at 747, n. 7.

Concerning the interpretation of a transaction or compromise, the supreme

court in Brown offered the following detailed analysis:

LSA-C.C. Art. 3071 . . . provides that a compromise is a written
contract. It follows that the compromise instrument is the law between
the parties and must be interpreted according to the parties’ true intent.
It also follows that the compromise instrument is governed by the same
general rules of construction applicable to contracts.

LSA-C.C. Art. 2046 sets forth a general rule of construction,
providing that “[w]hen the words of a contract are clear and explicit and
lead to no absurd consequences, no further interpretation may be made
in search of the parties’ intent.” The underscored word “further” in this
article signifies the true nature of contractual interpretation. The
determination that the language contained in a contract is clear and
explicit, in itself, involves an interpretive process. For that reason,
LSA-C.C. Art. 2046 emphasizes that the process involves no further
interpretation, as opposed to no interpretation at all.

LSA-C.C. Art. 3073 contains a supplementary rule of construction
governing the interpretation of the operative language, and the
determination of the scope, of a compromise agreement. LSA-C.C. Art.
3073 provides that a compromise agreement extends only to those
matters that the parties expressly intended to settle and that the scope of
the transaction cannot be extended by implication. More precisely,
LSA-C.C. Art. 3073 set[s] forth the following four factors to be
considered in determining the scope of a compromise instrument:

[1] Transactions regulate only the differences which appear
clearly to be comprehended in them by the intention of the
parties,

[2] whether it be explained in a general or particular
manner,

[3] unless it be the necessary consequence of what is
expressed; and

[4] they do not extend to differences which the parties
never intended to include in them.

....

7

In applying the rule of construction set forth in LSA-C.C. Art.
3073, courts are guided by the general principle “that the contract must
be construed as a whole and in light of attending events and
circumstances.” Thus, the intent which the words of the compromise
instrument express in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time
of execution of the agreement is controlling.

The meaning and intent of the parties to a written instrument,
including a compromise, is ordinarily determined from the four corners
of the instrument, and extrinsic (parol) evidence is inadmissible either
to explain or to contradict the terms of the instrument. Louisiana courts,
however, have crafted a special exception to the extrinsic evidence rule
for compromise agreements based on an in pari materia reading of
LSA-C.C. Art. 3073’s provision that a compromise extends only to
those differences the parties[] clearly comprehended and LSA-C.C. Art.
3079’s provision that an error as to the subject matter in dispute is a
ground to rescind a compromise.

Moak [v. American Automobile Insurance Co., 242 La. 160, 134
So.2d 911 (1961)] stands for the proposition that when a dispute arises
as to the scope of a compromise agreement, extrinsic evidence can be
considered to determine exactly what differences the parties intended to
settle. Following Moak, a long line of jurisprudence holds that a general
release will not necessarily bar recovery for those aspects of a claim not
intended by the parties to be covered by the release. Under that
jurisprudential rule, the parties to a release instrument are permitted to
raise a factual issue as to whether unequivocal language in the
instrument was intended to be unequivocal.

Louisiana courts, however, have tempered that jurisprudential
rule, recognizing that absent some substantiating evidence of mistaken
intent, no reason exists to look beyond the four corners of the instrument
to ascertain intent. Utilizing a case-by-case, factual analysis, Louisiana
courts have limited the rule’s application to cases in which
substantiating evidence is presented establishing either (1) that the
releasor was mistaken as to what he or she was signing, even though
fraud was not present; or (2) that the releasor did not fully understand
the nature of the rights being released or that the releasor did not intend
to release certain aspects of his or her claim. When the factual
circumstances surrounding the execution of the release instrument do
not fall within either of the above categories, Louisiana courts, applying
LSA-C.C. Art. 2046’s general rule of construction, have not hesitated to
confine their analysis to the four corners of the instrument. When, as in
that instance, a contract can be construed from the four corners of the
instrument without looking to extrinsic evidence, the question of
contractual interpretation is answered as a matter of law and thus
summary judgment is appropriate.

8

Id. at 748-50 (emphasis added) (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted).

Estelle argues that the agreement should be construed to apply only to property

claims between the parties. However, we find that her interpretation would have us

ignore language referring to all claims arising out of the marital relationship that

appears twice in the section entitled “MUTUAL RELEASE,” as well as the general

release contained in the first paragraph of the section entitled “MISCELLANEOUS.”

The agreement states that it is “not restricted to community property” but “marital

property of any nature whatsoever” and “claims arising out of the marital relationship,

of any kind.” That sentence continues, stating that it is the parties’ intent that the

agreement be “a full, complete and final settlement” with reference to six enumerated

types of property claims and “all other claims of any nature with respect to the marital

relationship.” The concluding section includes a broader release of “all causes of

action . . . whatsoever, in law or equity, which either of the parties ever had or now

has against the other.” The agreement also specifically refers to Estelle’s spousal

support claim, in paragraph eight of the “MISCELLANEOUS” section where John

agrees not to seek a reduction in the amount set by the court in the absence of certain

extraordinary circumstances.

Although we agree with Estelle that the agreement must be read in its entirety,

the foregoing leads us to a different conclusion, namely, that the parties intended that

the release apply to claims beyond their community property dispute. Evidence of

this intent is found in the clear and concise language that the agreement is meant to

be a complete settlement of “all other claims of any nature with respect to the marital

relationship” and the reference to spousal support elsewhere in the agreement. The

9

trial court did not err in concluding that Estelle’s spousal support claim is one of

those claims.

Decree

For the above reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this

appeal are assessed to Estelle Martin Moore.

AFFIRMED.

10

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-628

JOHN DAVID MOORE

VERSUS

ESTELLE MARTIN MOORE

COOKS, J., dissents.

Summary Judgement is not appropriate in this case. La. Code Civ. P. art.

969 (A). Further, the partition agreement’s failure to include any specific

reference to the wife’s right to future spousal support while specifically limiting

the husband’s right to seek a reduction makes it ambiguous. The affidavits of

the parties attorneys, involved in the drafting of the document, creates a genuine

issue of material fact regarding the “meeting of the minds of the parties” on the

spousal support issue.

1