Vincentv.Vincent

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth CircuitFeb 8, 2007
No. 2005-CA-1175. Consolidated with: 2006-C-1312 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2007)

No. 2005-CA-1175. Consolidated with: 2006-C-1312.

February 8, 2007.

APPEAL FROM CIVIL DISTRICT COURT, ORLEANS PARISH NO. 2004-6924, DIVISION "M-2" HONORABLE PAULETTE R. IRONS, JUDGE.

Nancy K. Durant, Metairie, LA 70002, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT.

Rita K. Akehurst, II, Lauren E. Brisbi, Jamison P. Bagwell, RITA AKEHURST ASSOCIATES, Harvey, LA 70058, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE.

(Court composed of Chief Judge JOAN BERNARD ARMSTRONG, Judge CHARLES R. JONES, Judge MAX N. TOBIAS JR., Judge EDWIN A. LOMBARD, and Judge LEON A. CANNIZZARO JR.)


This Court considered the appeal of Scott G. Vincent and pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974, the matter was re-argued before a five-judge panel of this Court. Subsequently, Mr. Vincent filed an application for a supervisory writ, numbered 2006-C-1312, which was ordered consolidated with this appeal.

The five-judge panel of this Court issues the following decree:

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court did not err in awarding interim spousal support in the amount of $10,044.29 per month. Therefore, the award of interim spousal support is affirmed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court did not err in awarding permanent alimony. One judge would affirm the award of the district court; however, the other two judges would amend and affirm as amended the award of permanent alimony by reducing the permanent alimony to Three Thousand ($3,000.00) dollars per month. Further, a majority of the panel would limit the award of permanent alimony to a period of five (5) years. Therefore, pursuant to Butler v. Zapata Haynie Corp., 94-1171 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So. 2d 1186, the award of permanent alimony is Three Thousand ($3,000.00) dollars per month for five years.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court erred in assessing to Mr. Vincent the costs of all attorney's fees in this matter. Therefore, that portion of the judgment assessing all attorney's fees to Mr. Vincent is reversed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a majority of the court finds that the district court did not err in assessing all court costs to Mr. Vincent. Accordingly, the assessment of all court costs to Mr. Vincent is affirmed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in all other respects the judgment of the district court is affirmed;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Relator's writ application numbered 2006-C-1312, is rendered moot by this decree. AMENDED AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; WRIT APPLICATION — MOOT

We note that the Appellant filed a "Suggestion of Absence of Jurisdiction of Seven-Judge Panel" with a prayer for relief. The order of this court rescinding the appointment of the seven-judge panel dated January 5, 2007 renders this suggestion moot.


TOBIAS, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART FROM THE PER CURIAM AND ASSIGNS REASONS.

I respectfully and substantially agree with the Per Curiam issued in the captioned matter.

I agree that a majority of the panel agrees Ms. Vincent is entitled to interim spousal support; that a majority of the panel agrees the amount of interim support should be at least $3,000.00 per month; that a majority of the panel agrees the prenuptial agreement does not preclude the permanent alimony; that no majority of the panel agrees as to the amount that the permanent alimony should be; that a majority of the panel finds the district court erred in assessing all attorney's fees in this matter to Mr. Vincent; and that a majority of the panel finds the district court erred in assessing all court costs to Mr. Vincent.

Finally, the per curiam states the relator's writ application number 2006-C-1312 is rendered moot by the per curiam decree. If "moot" means that the issue in the writ must be reopened because we reduced the awards previously granted by the court, then I agree. In addition, I would further understand that the stay previously issued by this court is recalled and vacated.

My reasons for my opinion in this case remain unchanged from those expressed in my concurrence /dissent.


I join in the per curiam insofar as it affirms the trial court's award of permanent alimony to Mrs. Vincent. However, having reviewed the record in its entirety, I am persuaded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and correctly awarded Mrs. Vincent interim spousal support in the amount of $10,044.29 per month, terminating upon the date of divorce, and final support in the amount of $7,275.20 per month for five years from the date of divorce, together with all attorney's fees and costs. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JONES, J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART AND ASSIGNS REASONS. LOMBARD J., CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART FOR THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY JUDGE JONES. CANNIZZARO, J. CONCURS IN PART AND DISSENTS IN PART FROM THE PER CURIAM AND ASSIGNS REASONS.