Shewbridge v. Shewbridge

3 Citing cases

  1. Reinhardt v. Reinhardt

    748 So. 2d 423 (La. 1999)   Cited 17 times
    In Reinhardt, the Supreme Court determined that prejudgment interest is not due on equalizing payments made as part of a partition of community property, even though part of the equalizing payment could be traced to a reimbursement claim.

    The jurisprudence generally permits an award of interest from the date of the partition judgment for reimbursement claims. Vice v. Vice, 567 So.2d 774 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1990) (awarding interest on reimbursement claim and on equalizing payment front date of judgment); McConathy v. McConathy, 25,542 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2/23/94), 632 So.2d 1200, 1206, writ denied, 94-0750 (La. 5/6/94), 637 So.2d 1052 (holding that "an unliquidated debt, such as a claim for contributions to a spouse's education or training, is due from the moment it is ascertainable by judgment"); Shewbridge v. Shewbridge, 31-170 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/28/98), 720 So.2d 780 (awarding wife interest from date of judgment of her award of compensation for contributions made toward husband's education and training, rather than from date of judicial demand); but seeAllen v.Allen, 602 So.2d 759 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992) (awarding interest from date of trial on merits). We hold that interest on an equalizing payment is not due until the judgment of partition, even when a substantial part of it can be traced to a reimbursement claim resolved as part of a judicial partition.

  2. Clemons v. Clemons

    960 So. 2d 1068 (La. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 18 times

    In determining whether an award is warranted under article 121, a court should consider: (1) the claimant's expectation of shared benefit when the contributions were made (2) the degree of detriment suffered by the claimant in making the contributions, and (3) the magnitude of the benefit the other spouse received. Shewbridge v. Shewbridge, 31, 170 (La.App. 2d Cir.10/28/98), 720 So.2d 780; Barrow v. Barrow, 27, 714 (La.App. 2d Cir.2/18/96), 669 So.2d 622, writs denied, 96-1057 (La. 6/21/96) 675 So.2d 1080, and 96-1072 (La. 6/21/96), 675 So.2d 1080. Benefits from the increased earning power may be in the form of an improved lifestyle or an increase in community assets.

  3. Santistevan v. Santistevan

    768 So. 2d 79 (La. Ct. App. 2000)

    The applicable law here is found in La.Civ. Code, Art. 121, which provides that a court may award a party to a divorce a sum for that spouse's financial contributions made for the education or training of the other spouse. Because the article leaves to the trial judge the discretion to make or deny such an award, the standard of review in this court is whether he abused his discretion in making this determination, see Barrow v. Barrow, 27,714 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 622, writs denied, 96-1057 and 96-1072 (La. 6/21/96), 675 So.2d 1080. The underlying facts upon which that decision is made, however, are subject to the manifest error standard, Shewbridge v. Shewbridge, 31,170 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 10/28/98), 720 so.2d 780. The above cases also set forth the same list of factors to be considered in making the ultimate determination of whether an award is to be made.