Eppie Anton Rodriguez v. Michael Janine Rodriguez, Jr.

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: November 6, 2020
• Docket: 2020CA0171
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST CIRCUIT

2020 CA 0171

EPPIE ATON RODRIGUEZ

VERSUS

MICHAEL JANINE RODRIGUEZ, JR.

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOV 0 6 2020

Appealed from the Twenty -Third Judicial District Court In and for the Parish of Ascension - State of Louisiana Docket Number 125, 469 • Division C The Honorable Katherine Stromberg, Judge Presiding

Louis J. Cosenza ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Gonzales, Louisiana PLAINTIFF— Eppie Rodriguez

Keyojuan Gant Turner ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Travis Turner DEFENDANT— Michael Rodriguez Gonzales, Louisiana

BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., WELCH, AND CHUTZ, J.T.

a WELCH, J.

In these divorce proceedings, Eppie Aton Rodriguez appeals a judgment in

favor of Michael Janine Rodriguez, denying her request for interim spousal

support. For reasons that follow, we reverse and render judgment awarding Ms. Rodriguez interim spousal support.

BACKGROUND

The parties herein were married on January 26, 2009, and thereafter,

established their matrimonial domicile in Ascension Parish, Louisiana. On May 6,

2019, Ms. Rodriguez commenced these proceedings by filing a petition seeking a divorce, partition of community property, and relief incidental to the divorce,

including, but not limited to, an award of interim spousal support. After a hearing

on the issue of interim spousal support, the trial court issued written reasons

denying Ms. Rodriguez' s request for interim spousal support on the basis that she

failed to demonstrate the need for interim spousal support because she was

voluntarily unemployed and had the means to provide for her support. A judgment

in accordance with the trial court' s ruling was signed on November 8, 2019 and it

is from this judgment that Ms. Rodriguez has appealed.'

On appeal, Ms. Rodriguez contends that the trial court erred in: ( 1)

considering Ms. Rodriguez' s means when determining whether she was in need of

support, and ( 2) finding that Ms. Rodriguez was capable of employment.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

In a proceeding for divorce, the court may award an interim periodic

support allowance to a spouse based on the needs of that spouse, the ability of the

other spouse to pay, and the standard of living of the spouses during the marriage.

La. C. C. arts. 111 and 113. Interim spousal support is designed to assist the

claimant spouse in sustaining the same style or standard of living that he or she

A judgment denying an award of interim spousal support is appealable in accordance with La. C. C. P. art. 3943. See Malone v. Malone, 282 So. 2d 119, 121 ( La. 1973).

2 enjoyed while residing with the other spouse, pending the litigation of the divorce.

Lambert v. Lambert, 2006- 2399 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 3/ 23/ 07), 960 So. 2d 921, 928.

A spouse' s right to claim interim spousal support is grounded in the statutorily

imposed duty on spouses to support each other during marriage, and thus provides

for the spouse who does not have sufficient income for his or her maintenance

during the period of separation. Id. Interim support preserves parity in the levels

of maintenance and support and avoids unnecessary financial dislocation until a

final determination of support can be made. Id.

The spouse seeking interim spousal support bears the burden of proving his

or her entitlement to such support. Id. To determine whether a claimant spouse is

entitled to receive interim support, the trial court must assess the needs of that

spouse, the ability of the non -claimant spouse to pay, and their standard of living

during the marriage. Id. A claimant demonstrates the need for interim spousal

support if she establishes that she lacks sufficient income or the ability to earn a

sufficient income to sustain the style or standard of living that she enjoyed while

she resided with the other spouse. Id. The needs of the claimant spouse have been

defined as the total amount sufficient to maintain that spouse in a standard of living

comparable to that enjoyed prior to the separation, limited only by the other

spouse' s ability to pay. Lambert, 960 So. 2d at 929. Once the claimant spouse has

established need, the court must examine the ability of the payor spouse to provide

support. Id. If the needs of the claimant spouse surpass the ability of the other

spouse to pay, interim spousal support should be fixed at a sum which will as

nearly as possible be just and fair to all parties involved. Id. In assessing a

spouse' s ability to pay, the court must consider his or her means. Id. " Means"

includes any resource from which the wants of life may be supplied, requiring an

assessment of the entire financial condition of the payor spouse. Id. " Entire

3 financial condition" is not limited to income, but also includes any resource from

which his or her needs can be supplied, including a spouse' s earning capacity. Id.

The trial court is vested with much discretion in determining whether to

make an award of interim spousal support, and such determination will not be

disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Lambert, 960 So. 2d at 928; see also

Martello v. Martello, 2006- 0594 ( La. App. 1St Cir. 3/ 23/ 07), 960 So. 2d 186, 192.

Although the trial court is vested with much discretion in determining whether to

interim spousal support, factual findings underlying a trial court' s decision are

reviewed under the manifest error standard of review. See Kirkpatrick v.

Kirkpatrick, 41, 851 ( La. App. 2nd Cir. 1/ 24/ 07), 948 So. 2d 390, 394. When the

court of appeal finds that a manifest error of material fact was made in the trial

court, the court of appeal is required, whenever possible, to redetermine the facts

de novo from the entire record and render a judgment on the merits. Ferrell v.

Fireman' s Fund Ins. Co., 94- 1252 ( La. 2/ 20/ 95), 650 So. 2d 742, 745.

In this case, in order to be entitled to interim spousal support, Ms. Rodriguez

had the burden of proving not only that she lacked sufficient income to maintain

the standard of living that she enjoyed while married, but also that Mr. Rodriguez

had the ability to pay. Ms. Rodriguez' s income and expense affidavit, which was

introduced into evidence, reflects that her monthly expenses were approximately

3, 267.00 and that she has no income. Other than questioning the amount of the

monthly expense listed for food ($ 1, 200. 00), none of the monthly expenses listed

in Ms. Rodriguez' s affidavit were challenged by Mr. Rodriguez as being beyond

Ms. Rodriguez' s style or standard of living that she enjoyed during her marriage to

Mr. Rodriguez. According to Ms. Rodriguez' s testimony, she moved to California

after separating from Mr. Rodriguez in May 2019 and is currently renting a room

in a home in California for $ 1, 000. 00 per month. When Ms. Rodriguez left the

matrimonial domicile, she withdrew $ 35, 000. 00 from the community checking

0 account and she has approximately $ 8, 000. 00 left of those funds. Ms. Rodriguez is

currently unemployed and has no income; however, she has secretarial training, as

well as certification as an EKG technician, a phlebotomist, and nursing assistant.

Ms. Rodriguez last worked as a patient care technician at an assisted living facility;

however, in 2012, she sustained injuries to her back and hands on the job when a

patient fell. As a result of that injury, she underwent a spinal fusion. Ms.

Rodriguez was also subsequently injured in a car accident and sustained a lumbar

spine injury. Ms. Rodriguez owns a home in the Philippines, which she purchased

with funds from her personal injury settlement, and her family members are

currently living in the home rent free. Ms. Rodriguez was denied disability

benefits when she sought them during the marriage on the basis of Mr. Rodriguez' s

income; however, she has not attempted to procure disability benefits since

separating from Mr. Rodriguez. Photos were admitted into evidence depicting Ms.

Rodriguez exploring caves, attempting to enter a lake from a pier, standing on the

bow of a boat, exercising, walking around Manhattan, and climbing stairs.

According to Mr. Rodriguez' s testimony, the whole time he was married to

Ms. Rodriguez, she never earned more than minimum wage, and she had not

worked since 2012, when she was injured. Mr. Rodriguez was aware that Ms.

Rodriguez had been injured, had undergone a cervical fusion, and that she hurt

when the weather was cold; however, he questioned how much pain she was

actually in because he saw a Facebook post about her climbing 724 steps at one

time. Mr. Rodriguez testified that he was a boilermaker by trade, but he is retired

and is receiving a monthly pension benefit. According to Mr. Rodriguez' s income

and expense affidavit, which was introduced into evidence, he has a net monthly

income from his pension in the amount of $ 3, 133. 00, and his total monthly

expenses are approximately $ 3, 041. 00, leaving him with approximately $ 92. 00 per

month. However, included with Mr. Rodriguez' s monthly expenses was " Wife

5 Allowance" in the amount of $600. 00, which Mr. Rodriguez admitted he had not

paid since Ms. Rodriguez left the matrimonial domicile and moved to California.

In addition, Mr. Rodriguez also testified that he had investment accounts and/ or

other liquid assets totaling approximately $ 180, 000. 00.

Based on this evidence, the trial court ruled as follows:

The [ c] ourt finds that [ Ms. Rodriguez] has not demonstrated that she has a need for support.She is currently unemployed, though she has formal training and various certifications that would allow her to work. She owns a home in the Philippines that could generate rental income, but is not because [ Ms. Rodriguez] allows her family to reside there for free. Though [ Ms. Rodriguez] testified to being in great pain from her injuries such that she cannot work, the record contains various photographs of her engaging in physical activity, such as dancing, boating, and climbing, appearing to be enjoying herself. Furthermore, the [ c] ourt was entirely unconvinced by [ Ms. Rodriguez' s] testimony regarding her pain from her injuries, as she appeared to be greatly exaggerating her symptoms. Accordingly, [ Ms. Rodriguez' s] claim for interim spousal support is denied.

On appeal, Ms. Rodriguez contends that the trial court erred when it

considered Ms. Rodriguez' s property, i.e., the funds that she withdrew from the

community checking account, as income and in determining whether she was in

need of support. However, the trial court' s written reasons do not reflect that it

considered the funds she removed from the community checking account; rather,

the trial court simply noted this in setting forth the factual background of the case.

The trial court' s written reasons reflect that it declined to make an award of interim

spousal support based on its factual finding that Ms. Rodriguez was voluntarily

unemployed, was exaggerating the pain from her injuries, and thus, she had the

ability to earn a sufficient income to sustain the style or standard of living that she

enjoyed while she resided with Mr. Rodriguez.

Ms. Rodriguez next contends that the trial court erred in determining that she

had the ability to earn sufficient income to sustain the style or standard of living

that she enjoyed while she resided with Mr. Rodriguez. We agree. Regardless of

n whether Ms. Rodriguez is exaggerating her symptoms and/ or her pain from her

injuries, as determined by the trial court, the uncontradicted evidence in the record

established that Ms. Rodriguez was a 56 -year old Filipino woman, that she had

little formal education and limited English language skills, that she has medical

issues requiring medication, that she has past physical injuries, that she has been

unemployed since 2012 ( i.e., for the majority of her marriage), and that Ms.

Rodriguez' s employment history prior to 2012 reveals that she earned only

minimum wage. The record also establishes that during the parties' marriage, Mr.

Rodriguez gave Ms. Rodriguez an allowance of $ 600. 00 per month. Even

assuming Ms. Rodriguez could return to work, as determined by the trial court,

based on her employment history, her earning income potential would be

approximately minimum wage, which would be insufficient to meet her monthly

living expenses, as reflected on her income and expense affidavit. Thus, we find

Ms. Rodriguez met her burden of proving she was in need of interim spousal

support by establishing that she lacked sufficient income or the ability to earn a

sufficient income to sustain the style or standard of living that she enjoyed while

she resided with Mr. Rodriguez and the trial court manifestly erred in concluding

otherwise.

Since the trial court determined that Ms. Rodriguez failed to prove that she

was in need of interim spousal support, the trial court made no factual findings

with regard to Mr. Rodriguez' s means or ability to pay interim spousal support.

On appeal, Ms. Rodriguez maintains that Mr. Rodriguez has the means or ability to

pay interim spousal support in the full amount of her monthly expenses

3, 267. 00). In addition to Mr. Rodriguez' s monthly pension benefit, Ms.

Rodriguez points to additional retirement and investment accounts that Mr.

Rodriguez has, and she also claims that he has the capacity to earn more than his

pension benefits. However, we find no merit to this contention. The record

7 establishes that Mr. Rodriguez is sixty years old and that he is retired. While a

spouse' s earning capacity and/or assets may be considered in determining whether

a spouse has the means or ability with which to pay interim spousal support, the

law does not require a spouse who is retired and receiving a pension or retirement

benefit to return to the workforce or to deplete their liquid assets in order to pay support to the other spouse. Rather, it is merely a factor that may be considered by

the court.

Considering Mr. Rodriguez' s net monthly income of $3, 133. 00, as reported

on his income and expense affidavit, and subtracting his current living expenses of

2, 441. 00 ( i.e., $ 3, 041. 00 minus the $ 600. 00 allowance to Ms. Rodriguez that he

admitted he was not paying), Mr. Rodriguez has approximately $ 692. 00 remaining

per month. As such, we must conclude that Mr. Rodriguez has the means or ability

to pay interim spousal support to Ms. Rodriguez. Bearing in mind the purpose of

interim spousal support, as well as the evidence establishing that Mr. Rodriguez

customarily gave Ms. Rodriguez a monthly allowance during the parties' marriage,

we hereby render judgment in favor of Ms. Rodriguez ordering Mr. Rodriguez to

pay Ms. Rodriguez interim spousal support in the amount of $600. 00 per month

the amount of the allowance customarily given by him), retroactive to the date of

judicial demand, which award shall terminate in accordance with the provisions set

forth in La. C. C. art. 113.

CONCLUSION

For all of the above and foregoing reasons, the November 8, 2019 judgment

of the trial court is reversed and judgment is rendered in favor of Eppie Aton

Rodriguez, awarding her the sum of $600.00 per month in interim spousal support,

retroactive to the date of judicial demand. All costs of this appeal are assessed to

the defendant/ appellee, Michael Janine Rodriquez.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.