Theron Pitre v. Terri Greene Pitre

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-330

THERON PITRE

VERSUS

TERRI GREENE PITRE

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. C-20103227
HONORABLE ANNE L. SIMON, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

J. DAVID PAINTER
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Chief Judge Ulysses Gene Thibodeaux, J. David Painter, and
Shannon J. Gremillion, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Cynthia C. LeBourgeois
239 La Rue France
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337)232-2320
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT:
Terri Greene Pitre

Richard D. Mere
P.O. Box 3301
Lafayette, LA 70502-3301
(337)269-5555
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APELLEE:
Theron Pitre

PAINTER, Judge.

Defendant, Terri Greene Pitre, appeals the judgment finding that she was not

free from fault in the break-up of her marriage to Plaintiff, Theron Pitre, and

terminating her spousal support. Finding no manifest error in the trial court’s

determinations, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Terri and Theron were married on June 19, 1995. They separated on April 12,

2010, and Theron filed a petition for divorce. Terri was a stay-at-home mom who

cared for the couple’s autistic son. She alleged that she was not at fault in the break-

up of the marriage and asked for interim and periodic final spousal support. A

judgment granting the divorce was signed July 21, 2011. The parties were awarded

joint custody of their son, with Terri being designated as the primary domiciliary

parent. Theron was ordered to pay $1,158.00 per month in child support and

$1,600.00 per month in interim spousal support. A trial on the issue of spousal

support was held on October 13, 2011. The trial court found that Terri was not free

from fault in the break-up of the marriage because it did not find any justification for

Terri’s expressions of jealousy and instead found her expressions of jealousy to be

excessive and abusive based on the testimony of several witnesses. All spousal

support was terminated. Terri appealed, asserting that the evidence established that

her actions were reasonable, excusable, and justified reactions to well-founded

suspicions of infidelity and, therefore, did not constitute not legal fault barring her

from receiving spousal support. We find no merit in Terri’s assignment of error and

affirm the trial court’s judgment for the reasons that follow.

DISCUSSION

The sole issue for our review is whether the trial court erred in finding that

Terri was not entitled to final periodic spousal support. Terri bears the burden of

proving that she was free from fault in the dissolution of the marriage and is thus

entitled to final periodic spousal support. Henry v. Henry, 08-692 (La.App. 3 Cir.

12/10/08), 999 So.2d 255.

In Pearce v. Pearce, 348 So.2d 75, 78 (La.1977), the Louisiana Supreme Court

stated:

In the area of domestic relations, much discretion must be vested in the
trial judge and particularly in evaluating the weight of evidence which is
to be resolved primarily on the basis of the credibility of witnesses. The
trial judge having observed the demeanor of the witnesses is in the better
position to rule on their credibility. Trosclair v. Trosclair, 337 So.2d
1216 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1976). The factual findings of the trial court are
therefore to be accorded very substantial weight on review. Gilberti v.
Gilberti, 338 So.2d 971 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1976).

The manifest error standard of review is applicable in this case, and we cannot set

aside the trial court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly wrong. Stobart v. State,

Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993).

As set forth by this court in Wolff v. Wolff, 07-332, pp. 2-3
(La.App. 3 Cir. 10/3/07), 966 So.2d 1202, 1204:

The statutes applicable to the award or denial of final
periodic spousal support are La.Civ.Code arts. 111 and 112.
Louisiana Civil Code Article 111 states:

In a proceeding for divorce or
thereafter, the court may award interim
periodic support to a party or may award
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 lists various factors for the
trial court's consideration in determining whether an award
of final periodic spousal support is merited. 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....‖

Henry, 999 So.2d at 257.

Terri argues that the trial court erred in finding that her behavior constituted

fault such that it disqualified her from final periodic spousal support. She asserts that

2

her ―actions, concerns and suspicions were reasonable, justified and excusable

reactions to her husband’s pattern of behavior, as said behaviors would lead any

reasonable person to conclude that their spouse had strayed from the marital

commitment.‖ She alleges that Theron abandoned their marriage due to his attraction

to and developing relationship with Denise LeBlanc, the woman to whom Theron is

currently married. Theron, on the other hand, asserts that the trial court was correct in

its conclusion that Terri’s actions were not justified and amounted to fault.

The trial court heard testimony from Terri; Theron; Mike Reinberger, Theron’s

supervisor at Acadiana Bottling; Brian Primeaux, a neighbor of Terri and Theron;

Bambi Polotzola, a member of the Autism Society of Acadiana; Derwin Pitre,

Theron’s brother; and Michelle Meyer, a member of the Autism Society of Acadiana.

Mike Reinberger testified that although Theron worked with female employees,

he never saw him being flirtatious or acting inappropriately with them. Brian

Primeaux testified that he and Theron attended sporting events together and that Terri

would badger Theron about what time he got home and that he felt sorry for Theron.

Bambi Polotzola testified that she was accused of having an affair with Theron but

that there was no such affair. Derwin Pitre testified as to Terri’s jealous behavior.

Theron testified that Terri always had a problem if he had contact with female

employees at Acadiana Bottling. She would call and berate him. He further testified

that if he was unable to leave work to attend his son’s medical appointments or

therapies, Terri would threaten him and become enraged. He also testified that he is

Terri’s third husband and that he and Terri began their relationship when Terri was

still married to her second husband. Theron further testified that Terri was constantly

accusing him of being unfaithful to her and of looking at other women.

Terri testified that Theron was always flirtatious and that he always looked at

other women. She further testified that she gave Theron a lot of freedom to do as he

wished. It was also Terri’s testimony that Theron suggested liaisons with third

3

parties, that he spent a lot of time on the computer, and began spending less time at

home.

Other than Terri’s testimony regarding her suspicions, there was no testimony

to suggest that Theron was actually having an affair or that he behaved

inappropriately with other women. ―Mere uncorroborated testimony of one spouse as

to the other spouse’s alleged acts, contradicted by the accused spouse, where the

credibility of neither is attacked, will not constitute a preponderance of the evidence.‖

Jenkins v. Jenkins, 441 So.2d 507, 510 (La.App. 2 Cir.1983), writ denied, 444 So.2d

1223 (La.1984).

The trial court concluded that there was no justification for Terri’s expressions

of jealousy and found them to be excessive and abusive. Accordingly, the trial court

found that Terri was not free from fault. Based upon our review of the record, we find

no clear error in the trial court’s ruling. The trial court was in the best position to

determine the credibility of the witnesses, and we cannot second-guess that

determination.

DECREE

There is no manifest error in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the

judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Theron Pitre, is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are

assessed to Defendant/Appellant, Terri Greene Pitre.

AFFIRMED.

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

4