Seth Scarborough v. Dora Maria Ybanez

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

09-1324

SETH SCARBOROUGH

VERSUS

DORA MARIA YBANEZ

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

APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 234,107, DIVISION A
HONORABLE DONALD T. JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE

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

JAMES T. GENOVESE
JUDGE

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

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, James T. Genovese, and David E. Chatelain,*
Judges.

AFFIRMED.
Howell D. Jones, IV
Law Firm of Howell D. Jones, IV
Post Office Box 14558
Alexandria, Louisiana 71315
(318) 442-1515
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-IN-RULE/APPELLANT:
Seth Scarborough

Tamara S. Battles
1605 Murray Street, Suite 124
Alexandria, Louisiana 71301
(318) 449-8849
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-IN-RULE/APPELLEE:
Dora Maria Ybanez
_____________________
*Honorable David E. Chatelain participated in this decision by appointment of the Louisiana
Supreme Court as Judge Pro Tempore.

GENOVESE, Judge.

In this domestic case relative to final periodic support, Defendant-in-

Rule/Appellant, Seth Scarborough, appeals the trial court’s judgment denying his

motion for involuntary dismissal on the issue of fault. Mr. Scarborough also appeals

the trial court’s judgment that Plaintiff-in-Rule/Appellee, Dora Maria Ybanez, was

entitled to final periodic support in the amount of $1,500.00 per month. For the

reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

FACTS

Seth Scarborough (Mr. Scarborough) and Dora Maria Ybanez (Ms. Ybanez)

were married on October 1, 2005. According to the record, Mr. Scarborough filed for

divorce pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 103 on February 11, 2009. Ms. Ybanez filed an

answer and reconventional demand, alleging that she was free from fault prior to Mr.

Scarborough’s filing of the petition for divorce and that she was in need of support

because she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer which rendered her unable

to work. The parties were divorced on June 15, 2009.

Following a trial on August 17, 2009, the trial court ruled that Ms. Ybanez

satisfied her burden of proving that she was free from fault in the dissolution of the

marriage and awarded her final periodic support in the amount of $1,500.00 a month.

Judgment in accordance with the trial court’s ruling was signed on August 21, 2009.

Mr. Scarborough appeals.

ISSUES

We must decide whether the trial court erred in denying Mr. Scarborough’s

motion for involuntary dismissal and whether the trial court erred in awarding Ms.

Ybanez $1,500.00 per month as final periodic support.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Motion for Involuntary Dismissal

At the close of Ms. Ybanez’s case-in-chief, Mr. Scarborough orally moved for

an involuntary dismissal on the issue of fault. He argued that Ms. Ybanez had not

offered any testimony as to her freedom from fault.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 1672(B) governs the procedure for

making a motion for involuntary dismissal and sets forth the appropriate standard for

either granting or denying said motion as follows:

In an action tried by the court without a jury, after the plaintiff has
completed the presentation of his evidence, any party, without waiving
his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may
move for a dismissal of the action as to him on the ground that upon the
facts and law, the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court may
then determine the facts and render judgment against the plaintiff and in
favor of the moving party or may decline to render any judgment until
the close of all the evidence.

We review a trial court’s judgment on a motion for involuntary dismissal under

a manifest error standard. Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell v. Granger, 06-859

(La.App. 3 Cir. 12/29/06), 947 So.2d 835, writ denied, 07-421 (La. 4/27/07), 955

So.2d 687.

At trial, Ms. Ybanez testified that she was a dutiful wife who, at times, worked

three jobs while Mr. Scarborough’s job required him to mostly work out of town.

When she was not working during the week, Ms. Ybanez would travel to wherever

Mr. Scarborough was working to spend time with him. According to Ms. Ybanez,

she discovered a lump in her breast in October of 2008 and told Mr. Scarborough of

her discovery. She claims that soon thereafter, while attempting to have a

prescription filled, she discovered that Mr. Scarborough had cancelled her health

insurance. Ms. Ybanez contends she had no indication that Mr. Scarborough was

2

unhappy in their marriage until February of 2009 when he called and informed her

that he did not love her and that he wanted a divorce.

In ruling on the motion for involuntary dismissal, the trial court relied solely

upon the testimony offered by Ms. Ybanez. The trial court elaborated:

[Ms. Ybanez] said that he called her and told her he didn’t love her, and
he left on that basis. And as to the need, that’s obvious that it - - it
exists. This woman has lost her health [insurance], and she’s definitely
in a position of needing assistance. The question, really, is how much;
unless your client takes the stand here and tells me something she didn’t
say . . . that would show that she is at fault.

“It is well settled that a trial court’s factual findings regarding fault in the area

of domestic relations are given great deference on review. If the trial court’s findings

are reasonable, i.e. not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong, then they will not be

disturbed.” Terry v. Terry, 06-1406, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/28/07), 954 So.2d 790,

793 (citing Coleman v. Coleman, 541 So.2d 1003 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1989)). Ms.

Ybanez testified that she felt she had a good marriage but that Mr. Scarborough left

her and sought a divorce because he did not love her anymore. Specifically, as to the

issue of fault, when asked by her attorney if there were any other circumstances that

may have led to the separation, she responded, “No, not at that time . . . .” Affording

the trial court great discretion in weighing the credibility of Ms. Ybanez and in

accepting her recitation of how and why the marriage ended, we do not find manifest

error in the trial court’s determination that Ms. Ybanez was free from fault or in its

subsequent denial of Mr. Scarborough’s motion for involuntary dismissal.

Final Periodic Support Award

The statutes applicable to the award or denial of final periodic support are

La.Civ.Code arts. 111 and 112. Louisiana Civil Code Article 111 provides, in

pertinent part, “In a proceeding for divorce or thereafter, the court . . . may award

3

final periodic support to a party who is in need of support and who is free from fault

prior to the filing of a proceeding to terminate the marriage in accordance with the

following Articles.” Louisiana Civil Code Article 112 provides, in pertinent part,

“When a spouse has not been at fault and is in need of support, based on the needs of

that party and the ability of the other party to pay, that spouse may be awarded final

periodic support . . . .”

In her request for periodic spousal support, Ms. Ybanez bears the burden of

proving that she was free from fault in the dissolution of her marriage to Mr.

Scarborough. See Hodges v. Miller, 08-675 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/08), 998 So.2d 906

(citing Wolff v. Wolff, 07-332 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 966 So.2d 1202; Floyd v.

Floyd, 03-1126 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/03), 861 So.2d 837). Mr. Scarborough, in

brief, argues that Ms. Ybanez “offered no testimony as to her freedom from fault in

the breakup of the marriage” and that she “offered no documentation or evidence of

her expenses or need.” Further, Mr. Scarborough contends that his “income and

expense affidavit, which was stipulated [to] by the parties and uncontested at trial,

reveals a negative income each month[.]” Therefore, he refutes the trial court’s

finding that he has the ability to pay Ms. Ybanez $1,500.00 per month in final

periodic support.

Having previously recited the testimony elicited from Ms. Ybanez on the issue

of fault, we find it unnecessary to replicate Ms. Ybanez’s testimony to address Mr.

Scarborough’s argument that Ms. Ybanez did not prove her freedom from fault.

Mr. Scarborough denied having knowledge that Ms. Ybanez had discovered

a lump in her breast in October of 2008. In fact, Mr. Scarborough testified that he

cancelled the family’s health insurance coverage because he could no longer afford

4

said coverage. According to Mr. Scarborough, he did not learn of Ms. Ybanez’s

breast cancer until either February or March of 2009. Mr. Scarborough testified that

he married Ms. Ybanez “for the kids.[1] We both agreed, several times, that after the

kids graduated from high school, that we would be done.”

The evidence reveals that Ms. Ybanez has an obvious need for support due to

her inability to work as a consequence of her ongoing cancer treatment. She testified

that she had no health insurance and that she had incurred exorbitant medical bills

resultant from her mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation treatments. She further

testified that her medical bills exceeded $70,000.00 and that she had an $800.00

monthly home mortgage note, household expenses, utilities, a car note, and car

insurance. This was not disputed. The record contains Mr. Scarborough’s Affidavit

Declaring Income and Expenses which indicates that his total gross monthly income

is $5,724.33. According to Mr. Scarborough, his monthly expenses exceed his

income, and, therefore, he is unable to pay Ms. Ybanez anything in final periodic

support. The trial court disagreed.

In determining the final periodic support award, trial court ruled that “because

of [Mr. Scarborough’s] earning capacity . . . it is practical and within the bounds to

order that he pay [Ms. Ybanez] Fifteen Hundred Dollars a month in spousal support.”

“The trial court is vested with great discretion in making [spousal support]

determinations, and its judgment will not be disturbed absent a manifest abuse of

discretion.” Knowles v. Knowles, 02-331, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/2/02), 827 So.2d

642, 647 (quoting Goodnight v. Goodnight, 98-1892 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/5/99), 735

So.2d 809). Our review of the evidence in the record reveals no clear abuse of

1
Ms. Ybanez has two children, each of whom had attained the age of majority before the trial
of this matter.

5

discretion by the trial court in awarding Ms. Ybanez final periodic support in the

amount of $1,500.00 per month. We find no error in the trial court’s determination

as to either Ms. Ybanez’s freedom from fault or her need for support.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court finding Ms. Ybanez

free from fault in the dissolution of the marriage and awarding her final periodic

support in the amount of $1,500.00 per month is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are

assessed against the Defendant-in-Rule/Appellant, Seth Scarborough.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of Appeal,
Rule 2–16.3.

6