Staser v. Staser

347 So. 2d 514
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedJune 22, 1977
Docket13277
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 347 So. 2d 514 (Staser v. Staser) 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
Staser v. Staser, 347 So. 2d 514 (La. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

347 So.2d 514 (1977)

Carlene Brandon STASER, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Elbert Warren STASER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 13277.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 22, 1977.

*515 Love, Rigby, Dehan & Love by Samuel P. Love, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Bodenheimer, Jones, Klotz & Simmons by J. W. Jones, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BOLIN, MARVIN and JONES, JJ.

MARVIN, Judge.

The husband appeals from a separation judgment in which the trial court awarded the wife $950 per month alimony pendente lite and $225 per month child support. We affirm.

The husband's gross annual income is approximately $29,000. He also receives $35 per diem during the four or five months a year he travels for his employer. The husband voluntarily paid expenses of his wife and fourteen-year-old son in excess of $1,000 a month for four months before the legal separation.

The wife owns separate property. The trial court found her separate income was $1,419.45 a year. She proved expenses in excess of the amount awarded.

Under LSA-C.C. Art. 148 the wife is entitled to alimony pendente lite in an amount sufficient to maintain her in a style comparable to that which she enjoyed prior to the separation. Small v. Small, 173 So.2d 854 (La.App.4th Cir. 1965). There is no requirement that she deplete her capital before she is entitled to enforce the support obligation of the husband. McMath v. Masters, 198 So.2d 734 (La.App.3d Cir. 1967).

The amount to be awarded as alimony pendente lite is within the discretion of the trial court and its conclusions will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of abuse. Whitmeyer v. Whitmeyer, 326 So.2d 884 (La.App.2d Cir. 1976). While the award is perhaps maximal, no abuse of discretion is presented.

At appellant's cost, judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

Braswell v. Braswell
494 So. 2d 1333 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Cook v. Cook
490 So. 2d 685 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
Wilhite v. Wilhite
408 So. 2d 973 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1982)
Watson v. Watson
372 So. 2d 639 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)
Gray v. Champagne
367 So. 2d 1309 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
347 So. 2d 514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/staser-v-staser-lactapp-1977.