Janice Broussard v. Joseph M. Broussard

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

12-1472

JANICE BROUSSARD

VERSUS

JOSEPH M. BROUSSARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF IBERIA, NO. 119077
HONORABLE JOHN E. CONERY, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

ELIZABETH A. PICKETT
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Elizabeth A. Pickett, Billy Howard Ezell, and J. David Painter,
Judges.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

Joslyn Renee Alex
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 126
Breaux Bridge, LA 70517
(337) 332-1180
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT:
Joseph M. Broussard

Natalie Bernard Broussard
Attorney at Law
203 W. Main St., #200
New Iberia, LA 70560
(337) 365-9000
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE:
Janice Broussard

PICKETT, Judge.

Joseph Broussard appeals the judgment of the trial court awarding his former

spouse, Janice Broussard, $750.00 per month in final periodic spousal support.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

After thirty-two years of marriage, Ms. Broussard filed a petition for divorce

from her husband, Mr. Broussard. Ms. Broussard was awarded $1000.00 per

month in interim periodic spousal support pursuant to a consent judgment between

the parties. A judgment of divorce was rendered April 25, 2012.

The only issue in this appeal is the award of final periodic support. Ms.

Broussard filed a rule to show cause why final periodic support should not be

awarded, while Mr. Broussard filed a rule to show cause why spousal support

should not terminate. The issue was heard by a hearing officer on July 11, 2012.

The hearing officer submitted a report to the trial court wherein he recommended

that Mr. Broussard be ordered to pay $750.00 per month in final periodic spousal

support. Significantly, the hearing officer specifically stated that “if there are any

issues of fault, those issues are deferred to the presiding Judge.”

A hearing was held before the trial court on September 27, 2012. The

minutes of court do not indicate that any evidence was introduced at the hearing,

and no transcript was produced. The trial court maintained the hearing officer’s

recommendation awarding $750.00 per month in final periodic spousal support. A

judgment in conformity with the trial court’s ruling in open court was rendered on

October 18, 2012. Mr. Broussard appeals that judgment.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Mr. Broussard asserts one assignment of error:

The Appellant urges that it is not proper to render an order
setting final periodic spousal support without a finding of fault.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Civil Code article 111 grants a court authority to award final

periodic support in a divorce proceeding or thereafter “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[.]” This court explained that the burden of proof is on the claimant,

in this case Ms. Broussard, to prove that she is free from fault in Diggs v. Diggs,

08-1271, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/1/09), 6 So.3d 1030, 1032:

A spouse seeking final periodic support must “affirmatively
prove” she is free from causing the failure of the marriage. Floyd v.
Floyd, 03-1126, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/10/03), 861 So.2d 837, 839;
La.Civ.Code arts. 111, 112. To meet this burden, she must prove she
did not commit misconduct that is an “independent, contributory or
proximate cause of the failure of the marriage.” Terry v. Terry, 06-
1406, p. 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/28/07), 954 So.2d 790, 794. Habitual
intemperance or excesses and cruel treatment or outrages are
examples of fault that can defeat a claim for final periodic support.
Floyd, 861 So.2d 837.

In her brief to this court, Ms. Broussard asserts that Mr. Broussard was given

an opportunity at the hearing before the trial court to present evidence that she was

at fault for the failure of their marriage. From his failure to present any evidence,

she argues we should find she was not at fault. The burden of proof in this case,

however, is not on Mr. Broussard, it is on Ms. Broussard. Ms. Broussard presented

no evidence to the trial court that she was free from fault. She failed to meet her

burden of proof. Her claim must fail.

2

CONCLUSION

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

to Janice Broussard.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.

3