STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
15-794
SALVADOR COSCARART
VERSUS
GINA LOUISE BEAUGH COSCARART
**********
APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 08-C-0208-B HONORABLE ADAM GERARD CASWELL, DISTRICT JUDGE
JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and John E. Conery, Judges.
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
Jack Derrick Miller Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1650 Crowley, LA 70526 (337) 788-0768 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Gina Louise Beaugh Coscarart Randall M. Guidry Durio, McGoffin, Stagg & Ackerman PO Box 51308 Lafayette, LA 70505 (337) 233-0300 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Salvador Coscarart
Nicole B. Breaux Attorney at Law 415 N. Parkerson Ave. Crowley, LA 70527-1650 (337) 783-0888 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Gina Louise Beaugh Coscarart SAUNDERS, Judge.
Gina Coscarart (“Gina”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court
increasing the amount of final spousal support to be paid by her former husband
Salvador Coscarart (“Sal”). We find that the trial court abused its discretion in its
increase of alimony, amend the judgment, and affirm as amended.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sal and Gina married in 1980 and divorced in 2008. Their former
community has been partitioned. By written judgment dated October 31, 2013, Sal
was ordered to pay $900.00 per month to Gina in final spousal support. Sal
appealed and the judgment was affirmed. Coscarart v. Coscarart, 14-84 (La.App.
3 Cir. 6/18/14)(unpublished opinion).
The litigation between the parties continued and on March 11, 2015, Gina
filed a rule to show cause why the final spousal support should not be increased.
The parties stipulated to Gina’s need of support. At trial, the only evidence
submitted was the affidavits and testimony of the parties. In her affidavit, Gina
claimed that her gross monthly income was $478.00 and her expenses were
$3,340.71. Sal agreed that Gina’s affidavit truly and accurately reflected Gina’s
income and expenses. In his affidavit, Sal claimed that his gross monthly income
was $8,069.19, his net monthly income was $5,630.28, and that his monthly
expenses were $4,831.14.
By judgment signed on July 20, 2015, Sal was ordered to pay to Gina final
spousal support in the amount of $1,200.00 per month. In its oral reasons for
judgment, the trial court explained that it found that Gina was clearly in need, that
Sal’s net monthly income was $6,630.00 when the rental payments on his former
home were considered, that Sal submitted no evidence to support his affidavit, and
that Sal testified he was no longer paying certain expenses listed on his affidavit. The trial court did not make a finding as to the precise amount of Sal’s monthly
expenses or disposable income, but found that Sal “clearly can pay twelve hundred
a month in spousal support.” Gina appeals the judgment, asserting she should have
been awarded more alimony.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In her sole assignment of error, Gina asserts that:
The lower court erred, as a matter of law, in failing to consider the true financial obligations of Sal after he expressly acknowledged that $1,592.50 of his monthly claimed expenses did not exist; that he had absolutely no documentation for his other claimed expenses of $702.00 per month; and that one of his expense figures was actually $100.00 in excess of the true amount. Those incorrect amounts (those in addition to the $1,592.50 of nonexistent expenses), total $961.50; and should have resulted in a substantially greater award of monthly spousal support. This is especially so when one considers that the court had “easily” determined that Gina had a net need of $2,862.71 (expenses of $3,340.71 -income of $478.00).
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
An award of final spousal support is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bhati
v. Bhati, 09-1030 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/10), 32 So.3d 1107. Louisiana Civil Code
Article 112 requires that, in awarding final spousal support, “[t]he court shall
consider all relevant factors. . . including[:]”
(1) The income and means of the parties, including the liquidity of such means.
(2) The financial obligations of the parties.
(3) The earning capacity of the parties.
(4) The effect of custody of children upon a party’s earning capacity.
(5) The time necessary for the claimant to acquire appropriate education, training, or employment.
(6) The health and age of the parties.
(7) The duration of the marriage.
2 (8) The tax consequences to either or both parties.
Additionally, La.Civ.Code art. 112 requires that the award of final spousal support
“shall not exceed one-third of the obligor’s net income.”
DISCUSSION
At trial, Sal testified that he was receiving $1,100.00 per month from the
rental of his home. This income was not included on his affidavit. He further
testified that $100.00 of that amount was used to maintain the lawn. Further, Sal
testified that he receives a yearly Christmas bonus in the amount of $1,000.00,
which was also not included on his affidavit.
On his affidavit, Sal claimed to expend $85.00 per month on transportation,
which he asserted was the cost of washing the company vehicle provided to him
for both business and personal use, $180.00 per month on yard care, $60.00 on gas
and oil, which he claimed was for the maintenance of his motor cycle, which was
no longer operable, $10.00 per month for motorcycle repairs, $175.00 per month
on dental maintenance, $50.00 per month on internet service, $50.00 per month on
haircuts, $500.00 per month on credit card bills, $156.00 per month on appliance
insurance, $222.50 per month on life insurance, $30.00 per month on holiday
expenses, $10.00 per month on books and magazines, $50.00 per month in
charitable contributions, and $40.00 per month in activity fees. However, at trial,
he testified that these expenses no longer existed.
On his affidavit, Sal also claimed $30.00 per month in laundry and cleaning
costs, $50.00 per month in costs for over-the-counter medication, $160.00 per
month in other medical expenses, $150.00 for electricity at the home of his new
spouse, $139.00 per month of cable at his wife’s home, $20.00 per month on
natural gas at his wife’s home, and $142.00 per month for the cellular phone bill.
However, he testified that he “[did] not know how much [he] spent” on these items. 3 Additionally, Sal submitted no documentation of any of these expenses. Sal
further claimed expenses for legal fees in the amount of $500.00 per month, but
submitted no documentation of such expense at trial.
On the basis of the record, we find that the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion in the amount awarded to Gina. Sal clearly testified that many of the
claimed expenses no longer existed and that he did not know the amount he spent
on others. Moreover, he submitted no documentation to substantiate the claimed
expenses of which he was unsure of the amount spent by him. In the absence of
any documentation of these speculative expenses, we decline to consider them.
On the record before us, we find that Sal’s gross monthly income to be
$9,152.52, which includes his claimed salary of $8,069.19, $1,100 per month in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
15-794
SALVADOR COSCARART
VERSUS
GINA LOUISE BEAUGH COSCARART
**********
APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 08-C-0208-B HONORABLE ADAM GERARD CASWELL, DISTRICT JUDGE
JOHN D. SAUNDERS JUDGE
Court composed of John D. Saunders, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and John E. Conery, Judges.
AFFIRMED AS AMENDED.
Jack Derrick Miller Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1650 Crowley, LA 70526 (337) 788-0768 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Gina Louise Beaugh Coscarart Randall M. Guidry Durio, McGoffin, Stagg & Ackerman PO Box 51308 Lafayette, LA 70505 (337) 233-0300 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Salvador Coscarart
Nicole B. Breaux Attorney at Law 415 N. Parkerson Ave. Crowley, LA 70527-1650 (337) 783-0888 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Gina Louise Beaugh Coscarart SAUNDERS, Judge.
Gina Coscarart (“Gina”) appeals from the judgment of the trial court
increasing the amount of final spousal support to be paid by her former husband
Salvador Coscarart (“Sal”). We find that the trial court abused its discretion in its
increase of alimony, amend the judgment, and affirm as amended.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Sal and Gina married in 1980 and divorced in 2008. Their former
community has been partitioned. By written judgment dated October 31, 2013, Sal
was ordered to pay $900.00 per month to Gina in final spousal support. Sal
appealed and the judgment was affirmed. Coscarart v. Coscarart, 14-84 (La.App.
3 Cir. 6/18/14)(unpublished opinion).
The litigation between the parties continued and on March 11, 2015, Gina
filed a rule to show cause why the final spousal support should not be increased.
The parties stipulated to Gina’s need of support. At trial, the only evidence
submitted was the affidavits and testimony of the parties. In her affidavit, Gina
claimed that her gross monthly income was $478.00 and her expenses were
$3,340.71. Sal agreed that Gina’s affidavit truly and accurately reflected Gina’s
income and expenses. In his affidavit, Sal claimed that his gross monthly income
was $8,069.19, his net monthly income was $5,630.28, and that his monthly
expenses were $4,831.14.
By judgment signed on July 20, 2015, Sal was ordered to pay to Gina final
spousal support in the amount of $1,200.00 per month. In its oral reasons for
judgment, the trial court explained that it found that Gina was clearly in need, that
Sal’s net monthly income was $6,630.00 when the rental payments on his former
home were considered, that Sal submitted no evidence to support his affidavit, and
that Sal testified he was no longer paying certain expenses listed on his affidavit. The trial court did not make a finding as to the precise amount of Sal’s monthly
expenses or disposable income, but found that Sal “clearly can pay twelve hundred
a month in spousal support.” Gina appeals the judgment, asserting she should have
been awarded more alimony.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
In her sole assignment of error, Gina asserts that:
The lower court erred, as a matter of law, in failing to consider the true financial obligations of Sal after he expressly acknowledged that $1,592.50 of his monthly claimed expenses did not exist; that he had absolutely no documentation for his other claimed expenses of $702.00 per month; and that one of his expense figures was actually $100.00 in excess of the true amount. Those incorrect amounts (those in addition to the $1,592.50 of nonexistent expenses), total $961.50; and should have resulted in a substantially greater award of monthly spousal support. This is especially so when one considers that the court had “easily” determined that Gina had a net need of $2,862.71 (expenses of $3,340.71 -income of $478.00).
STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
An award of final spousal support is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Bhati
v. Bhati, 09-1030 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/10/10), 32 So.3d 1107. Louisiana Civil Code
Article 112 requires that, in awarding final spousal support, “[t]he court shall
consider all relevant factors. . . including[:]”
(1) The income and means of the parties, including the liquidity of such means.
(2) The financial obligations of the parties.
(3) The earning capacity of the parties.
(4) The effect of custody of children upon a party’s earning capacity.
(5) The time necessary for the claimant to acquire appropriate education, training, or employment.
(6) The health and age of the parties.
(7) The duration of the marriage.
2 (8) The tax consequences to either or both parties.
Additionally, La.Civ.Code art. 112 requires that the award of final spousal support
“shall not exceed one-third of the obligor’s net income.”
DISCUSSION
At trial, Sal testified that he was receiving $1,100.00 per month from the
rental of his home. This income was not included on his affidavit. He further
testified that $100.00 of that amount was used to maintain the lawn. Further, Sal
testified that he receives a yearly Christmas bonus in the amount of $1,000.00,
which was also not included on his affidavit.
On his affidavit, Sal claimed to expend $85.00 per month on transportation,
which he asserted was the cost of washing the company vehicle provided to him
for both business and personal use, $180.00 per month on yard care, $60.00 on gas
and oil, which he claimed was for the maintenance of his motor cycle, which was
no longer operable, $10.00 per month for motorcycle repairs, $175.00 per month
on dental maintenance, $50.00 per month on internet service, $50.00 per month on
haircuts, $500.00 per month on credit card bills, $156.00 per month on appliance
insurance, $222.50 per month on life insurance, $30.00 per month on holiday
expenses, $10.00 per month on books and magazines, $50.00 per month in
charitable contributions, and $40.00 per month in activity fees. However, at trial,
he testified that these expenses no longer existed.
On his affidavit, Sal also claimed $30.00 per month in laundry and cleaning
costs, $50.00 per month in costs for over-the-counter medication, $160.00 per
month in other medical expenses, $150.00 for electricity at the home of his new
spouse, $139.00 per month of cable at his wife’s home, $20.00 per month on
natural gas at his wife’s home, and $142.00 per month for the cellular phone bill.
However, he testified that he “[did] not know how much [he] spent” on these items. 3 Additionally, Sal submitted no documentation of any of these expenses. Sal
further claimed expenses for legal fees in the amount of $500.00 per month, but
submitted no documentation of such expense at trial.
On the basis of the record, we find that the trial court committed an abuse of
discretion in the amount awarded to Gina. Sal clearly testified that many of the
claimed expenses no longer existed and that he did not know the amount he spent
on others. Moreover, he submitted no documentation to substantiate the claimed
expenses of which he was unsure of the amount spent by him. In the absence of
any documentation of these speculative expenses, we decline to consider them.
On the record before us, we find that Sal’s gross monthly income to be
$9,152.52, which includes his claimed salary of $8,069.19, $1,100 per month in
rental income less the $100.00 lawn expense on the property, and $1,000 per year
in an annual bonus, which translates to $83.33 per month. On his affidavit, he
reported payroll deductions of $2,388.91, resulting in a net monthly income of
$6,763.61.
We further find that the expenses he admitted no longer existed, as well as
the expenses for which he could not specify an amount and for which he submitted
no documentation, must be excluded from the calculation of his total monthly
expenses. Thus, we find that his monthly expenses total $858.16 for the mortgage
note on his rental property, $40.50 for an alarm expense, $100.00 per month in
maintenance, $25.00 per month for pest control, $350.00 for food, $25.00 per
month for household supplies, $30.00 per month for clothing, $85.00 per month for
vehicle insurance, $459.09 for medical insurance, and $80.00 per month for meals
away from home, which totals $2,052.75. We further conclude that Sal’s
disposable income equals $4,710.86, which is his net income less the documented
expenses of $2,052.75. 4 The amount by which the payee’s allowable monthly expenses exceeded his
or her income is the appropriate award of final periodic spousal support. See King
v. King, 48,881 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/26/14), 136 So.3d 941. On the stipulation of the
parties, Gina has a monthly income of $478.00 and her expenses were $3,340.71.
Thus, her expenses exceed her income by $2,862.71 per month. In ordering Sal to
pay Gina final periodic spousal support in the amount of $1,200.00 per month, the
trial court’s figure was significantly lower than the amount of need stipulated by
the parties. Thus, we amend the trial court award to require Sal to pay Gina final
periodic spousal support in the amount of $1,570.29 per month, which is one-third
of his income per month after payroll deductions and expenses. La.Civ.Code art.
112.
Decree
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed, as
amended. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Appellee, Salvador Coscarart.