Almon v. Almon

2005-1848 ( La. App. 1 Cir 9/15/06), 943 So. 2d 1113

 

RULE:

While living together in a sexual relationship of some permanence is certainly a factor, La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 115 does not provide for extinguishment of a spousal obligation where the evidence establishes only random acts of sexual intercourse.

FACTS:

The trial court found the circumstances were not sufficient to establish that the wife "cohabited with another person in the manner of married persons," as required by art. 115. The trial court correctly applied the standard in the article and supported its factual finding that while the wife had the man to share her house, not necessarily her bedroom, and occasionally had sex with him, that did not rise to cohabiting in a manner of married persons. While living together in a sexual relationship of some permanence was certainly a factor, the statute did not provide for extinguishment of a spousal obligation where the evidence established only random acts of sexual intercourse. Although the wife testified that they had engaged in sexual relations on occasion at the commencement of his residency, she never committed to having any type of romantic relationship with the man. The wife did not consider or introduce the man as her "boyfriend," nor did she consider them a "couple." They never discussed marriage and the wife had not engaged in nor expected to have any long-term or other relationship with the man, other than what had been noted.

ISSUE:

Does living together and occasional sexual intercourse provide for extinguishment of a spousal obligation under La. Civ. Code Ann. art 115?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

A thorough review of the record and testimony contained therein reveals that Mrs. Almon and Mr. Perine did not "live together in a sexual relationship of some permanence" as contemplated by the statute. Moreover, although Mrs. Almon testified that she and Mr. Perine had engaged in sexual relations on occasion in the early part of his residing in her home, "cohabited … in the manner of married persons," does not mean just acts of sexual intercourse. Considering the record in its entirety, the record does not support a finding that Mrs. Almon and Mr. Perine were cohabiting with one another "in the manner of married persons" as required by LSA-C.C. art. 115 to warrant the termination of Mr. Almon's permanent spousal support obligation.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.