Dean v. Dean

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Dean v. Dean

416 So. 2d 334, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 7588

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 12950

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 416 So. 2d 334 (Dean v. Dean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dean v. Dean, 416 So. 2d 334, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 7588 (La. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

GULOTTA, Judge.

The defendant-husband, appealing, claims a $3,000.00 per month alimony pendente lite award for the plaintiff-wife and three minor children, ages six, four and two-and-a-half, is excessive. We affirm.

The record discloses the husband’s earnings after taxes were stipulated at $90,-000.00 annually based on a before-tax income of $179,222.00; the wife’s monthly expenses for the support of herself and the minor children to permit her to continue in a life style commensurate with the husband’s income total $6,130.00; the hus[335]*335band’s monthly expenses total $1,200.00; and the community has an outstanding indebtedness of $42,000.00, but there is no outstanding mortgage on the newly constructed, impressive and large family home. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the amount awarded. See Barnett v. Barnett, 405 So.2d 630 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Guinn v. Guinn, 405 So.2d 620 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Vidrine v. Vidrine, 402 So.2d 793 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Shepard v. Shepard, 334 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1976); Bernard v. Bernard, 300 So.2d 499 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1974); Nelson v. Nelson, 311 So.2d 268 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974); Thomas v. Thomas, 281 So.2d 471 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973); Mouton v. Mouton, 372 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GULOTTA, Judge.

The defendant-husband, appealing, claims a $3,000.00 per month alimony pendente lite award for the plaintiff-wife and three minor children, ages six, four and two-and-a-half, is excessive. We affirm.

The record discloses the husband’s earnings after taxes were stipulated at $90,-000.00 annually based on a before-tax income of $179,222.00; the wife’s monthly expenses for the support of herself and the minor children to permit her to continue in a life style commensurate with the husband’s income total $6,130.00; the hus[335]*335band’s monthly expenses total $1,200.00; and the community has an outstanding indebtedness of $42,000.00, but there is no outstanding mortgage on the newly constructed, impressive and large family home. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion in the amount awarded. See Barnett v. Barnett, 405 So.2d 630 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Guinn v. Guinn, 405 So.2d 620 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Vidrine v. Vidrine, 402 So.2d 793 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1981); Shepard v. Shepard, 334 So.2d 745 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1976); Bernard v. Bernard, 300 So.2d 499 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1974); Nelson v. Nelson, 311 So.2d 268 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974); Thomas v. Thomas, 281 So.2d 471 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1973); Mouton v. Mouton, 372 So.2d 771 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 So. 2d 334, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 7588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dean-v-dean-lactapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack