Malone v. Malone

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Malone v. Malone

637 So. 2d 1039, 1994 La. LEXIS 1170, 1994 WL 172807

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 6, 1994

DocketNo. 94-C-0594

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 637 So. 2d 1039 (Malone v. Malone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malone v. Malone, 637 So. 2d 1039, 1994 La. LEXIS 1170, 1994 WL 172807 (La. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court has ordered and reviewed the record in this case. Given the lack of any evidence in the record reflecting a real change in either spouses’ circumstances and the trial court’s recognition that the husband’s ability to pay has not been impaired by his reduction in income, we find the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the wife’s alimony as originally set by consent judgment. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions that the wife’s originally set alimony be reinstated. We also expressly recognize the husband’s right to reurge his motion to reduce or terminate alimony and to support that motion with proof of the requisite change of circumstances. See Rhinehart v. Rhinehart, 475 So.2d 43 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 477 So.2d 692 (La.1985) (citing Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 283 So.2d 226 (La.1973)).

CALOGERO, C.J., and HALL and ORTIQUE, JJ., would grant the writ and docket for argument. DENNIS, J., not on panel.

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

PER CURIAM.

The court has ordered and reviewed the record in this case. Given the lack of any evidence in the record reflecting a real change in either spouses’ circumstances and the trial court’s recognition that the husband’s ability to pay has not been impaired by his reduction in income, we find the trial court abused its discretion in reducing the wife’s alimony as originally set by consent judgment. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions that the wife’s originally set alimony be reinstated. We also expressly recognize the husband’s right to reurge his motion to reduce or terminate alimony and to support that motion with proof of the requisite change of circumstances. See Rhinehart v. Rhinehart, 475 So.2d 43 (La.App. 2d Cir.), writ denied, 477 So.2d 692 (La.1985) (citing Bernhardt v. Bernhardt, 283 So.2d 226 (La.1973)).

CALOGERO, C.J., and HALL and ORTIQUE, JJ., would grant the writ and docket for argument. DENNIS, J., not on panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 So. 2d 1039, 1994 La. LEXIS 1170, 1994 WL 172807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malone-v-malone-la-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack