Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

347 So. 2d 514

Docket No. 13277.

Staser v. Staser

Carlene Brandon STASER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elbert Warren STASER, Defendant-Appellant.

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 22, 1977.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1977-06-22

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1986

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[t]here is no requirement that she (the wife) deplete her capital (emphasis added) before she is entitled to enforce the support obligation of the husband.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wilhite v. Wilhite

Relies on 198 So. 2d 734 - McMath v. Masters · Williams v. Small · Whitmeyer v. Whitmeyer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-06-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*515 Love, Rigby, Dehan & Love by Samuel P. Love, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

¶2Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons by J. W. Jones, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before BOLIN, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

¶4MARVIN, Judge.

¶5The husband appeals from a separation judgment in which the trial court awarded the wife $950 per month alimony pendente lite and $225 per month child support. We affirm.

¶6The husband's gross annual income is approximately $29,000. He also receives $35 per diem during the four or five months a year he travels for his employer. The husband voluntarily paid expenses of his wife and fourteen-year-old son in excess of $1,000 a month for four months before the legal separation.

¶7The wife owns separate property. The trial court found her separate income was $1,419.45 a year. She proved expenses in excess of the amount awarded.

¶8Under LSA-C.C. Art. 148 the wife is entitled to alimony pendente lite in an amount sufficient to maintain her in a style comparable to that which she enjoyed prior to the separation. Small v. Small,173 So.2d 854 (La.App.4th Cir. 1965). There is no requirement that she deplete her capital before she is entitled to enforce the support obligation of the husband. McMath v. Masters,198 So.2d 734 (La.App.3d Cir. 1967).

¶9The amount to be awarded as alimony pendente lite is within the discretion of the trial court and its conclusions will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of abuse. Whitmeyer v. Whitmeyer,326 So.2d 884 (La.App.2d Cir. 1976). While the award is perhaps maximal, no abuse of discretion is presented.

¶10At appellant's cost, judgment is affirmed.

/347/so2d/514 · .json · Public domain