Sally Elizabeth Kitchen v. William Perry Kitchen

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

10-161

SALLY ELIZABETH KITCHEN

VERSUS

WILLIAM PERRY KITCHEN

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 81,892, DIV. C
HONORABLE JAMES RICHARD MITCHELL, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, Jimmie C. Peters, and Elizabeth A. Pickett,
Judges.

AFFIRM.

Elvin C. Fontenot, Jr.
Attorney at Law
110 East Texas Street
Leesville, LA 71446
(337) 239-2684
Counsel for Defendant-Appellant:
William Perry Kitchen

Scott Westerchil
Attorney at Law
301 South 3rd Street
Leesville, LA 71446
(337) 238-0019
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee:
Sally Elizabeth Kitchen

PICKETT, Judge.

William Kitchen appeals a judgment of the trial court awarding his former wife

Sally Kitchen interim spousal support.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

William and Sally Kitchen were married for six years. Sally filed a Petition for

Divorce on August 26, 2009, in which she also sought interim spousal support.

Following a hearing on November 2, 2009, the trial court ordered William to pay

Sally $1700.00 per month in interim spousal support retroactive to August 26, 2009,

subject to a credit of $100.00 that William had already paid Sally. The trial court

signed a judgment in conformity with its written reasons on November 20, 2009.

William now appeals.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

On appeal, William Kitchen asserts one assignments of error:

The award of interim spousal support herein was error or alternatively
that the award by the trial court was excessive.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Civil Code article 113 provides the basis for the award of interim

spousal support. It states, in pertinent part:

Upon motion of a party or when a demand for final spousal
support is pending, the court may award a party an interim spousal
support allowance based on the needs of that party, the ability of the
other party to pay, and the standard of living of the parties during the
marriage, which award of interim spousal support allowance shall
terminate upon the rendition of a judgment of divorce.

This court discussed interim spousal support in Derouen v. Derouen, 04-1137, pp. 3-4

(La.App. 3 Cir. 2/2/05), 893 So.2d 981, 984:

The Louisiana Civil Code’s regulations on interim spousal
support are “designed to assist the claimant spouse in sustaining the

1

same style or standard of living that he or she enjoyed while residing
with the other spouse, pending the litigation of the divorce.” Smoloski
v. Smoloski, 01-485, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01), 799 So.2d 599, 601.
A spouse’s right to claim interim periodic support “is grounded in the
statutorily imposed duty on spouses to support each other during
marriage, and thus, provides for the spouse who does not have sufficient
income for his or her maintenance during the period of separation.”
Brar v. Brar, 01-370, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/01), 796 So.2d 810, 813.
Interim support preserves parity in the levels of maintenance and
support, and avoids “unnecessary financial dislocation until a final
determination of support can be made.” Jones v. Jones, 38,790, p. 15
(La.App. 2 Cir. 6/25/04), 877 So.2d 1061, 1072.

The trial court exercises considerable discretion in determining whether or not

to award interim spousal support, and its decision will not be overturned on appeal

absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Derouen, 893 So.2d 891.

In this case the record establishes that Sally did not work for the six years she

and William were married, though she had worked before her marriage. She has

earned two associate degrees and had been employed by an attorney, but quit her job

two weeks before she and William married. Sally and William lived in a large home

in Oklahoma while they were married. She seldom purchased new clothes during the

marriage. The couple had only one vehicle that William used for work.

Sally asked the court for $2372.00 in interim spousal support. Since they have

separated, Sally has lived with her daughter. Her request for support included money

for her to purchase a vehicle, insurance for the vehicle, and fuel, since she had no

means of transportation. It included rent and utilities, and a $200 per month clothing

allowance. It also included amounts for laundry, grooming, household supplies, and

food.

The evidence shows that before taxes William made $5884.62 every four

weeks, which means his monthly salary is $6375.00 per month. In his affidavit listing

his income and expenses, he indicated that after expenses every month, he had a net

2

loss of $355.37. However, William admitted during his testimony that the expenses

for household income were $200, not $700 as listed in the affidavit. Also, he lists a

monthly loan payment on two trailers of $1350.00, but does not include the rental

income from the trailers. These three adjustments to William’s income and expense

affidavit indicate that his net income is approximately $2000.00 higher than he

claims, or approximately $1700.00.

We find that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in its findings

regarding the needs of Sally, the ability of William to pay, and the standard of living

of the couple during the marriage. We therefore affirm the judgment of the trial court.

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed

to the appellant.

AFFIRMED.

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

3