Audwin Lane Jordan VS Sandra Jordan
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2009 CA 1934 AUDWIN LANE JORDAN VERSUS SANDRA JORDAN DATE OFJUDGMENT 72010 MAY ON APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT NUMBER 149 DIVISION B PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 205 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE A J KLING JR JUDGE AD HOC Audrey M Lamb Counsel for DefendantinRuleAppellee Baton Rouge Louisiana Audwin Lane Jordan Kevin L James Counsel for PlaintiffinRule Appellant Baton Rouge Louisiana Sandra L Jordan BEFORE PARRO KUHN AND McDONALD JJ Disposition AFFIRMED Kuhn I Sandra L Jordan appeals a trial court judgment that ordered appellee s Audwin Lane Jordan to pay final periodic spousal support to her in the amount of 00 200 monthly beginning on October 1 2005 for a twoyear period The monthly amount is not disputed on appeal Ms Jordan challenges solely the limited duration of the award Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court s limitation of the award we affirm the judgment I PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND After approximately eleven years of marriage Ms Jordan and Mr Jordan were divorced in August 2004 Thereafter Ms Jordan filed a petition seeking spousal support wherein she alleged that Mr Jordan was at fault in the breakup of their marriage During a September 22 2005 hearing the trial court concluded that Ms Jordan was free from fault and considered testimony regarding the issue of Ms s Jordan entitlement to an award of final periodic spousal support 2 At the conclusion of the hearing the trial court rendered a judgment ordering Mr Jordan to pay support to Ms Jordan for a twoyear period The trial court reasoned that in two years Ms Jordan twentythree year old daughter Asya Douse who was a s graduate student at the time of trial would be old enough to earn her own living 1 There were no children born of this marriage Each party had an adult child from a prior marriage or other relationship that was dependent on them for support 2 condition for the award of final periodic support was the claimant freedom from fault prior s to the institution of an action for divorce See La C art 111 Revision Comments comment c 2 1997 and Ms Jordan won have that expense The trial court signed a written t judgment on March 7 2008 Ms Jordan has appealed II ANALYSIS At the time of trial La C art 111 provided in pertinent part that in a proceeding for divorce or thereafter the court may award final periodic support to a party free from fault prior to the filing of a proceeding to terminate the marriage based on the needs of that party and the ability of the other party to pay in accordance with La C arts 112 et seq La C art 112 addressing the determination of final periodic support provided A The court must consider all relevant factors in determining the entitlement amount and duration of final support Those factors may include 1 The needs of the parties 2 The income and means of the parties including the liquidity of such means 3 The financial obligations ofthe parties 4 The earning capacity of the parties 5 The effect of custody of children upon a party earning s capacity 6 The time necessary for the claimant to acquire appropriate education training or employment 7 The health and age of the parties 8 The duration of the marriage 3 See discussion infra regarding monthly expenses incurred by Ms Jordan on behalf of her daughter 4 Articles 111 and 112 were amended by 2006 La Acts No 749 1 effective June 30 2006 The provisions of Act 749 are interpretative and shall apply to pending claims for final periodic support in which trial has not yet commenced as of the effective date of this Act 2006 La Acts No 749 2 Since the trial of this matter was concluded prior to the effective date of the 2006 amendments the pre amendment versions of LSA C arts 111 and 112 govern this matter 3 9 The tax consequences to either or both parties B The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed one third of the obligor net income s In an action for spousal support the claimant spouse has the burden of proving insufficient means of support Until need has been demonstrated the other spouse financial means are irrelevant Prestenback v Prestenback 08 s 0457 p 7 La App 1st Cir 11 9 So 172 177 08 18 3d Support means a sum sufficient for the claimant spouse maintenance s which includes the allowable expenses for food shelter clothing transportation expenses medical and drug expenses utilities household maintenance and the income tax liability generated by spousal support payments Id 08 1457 at p 8 9 3d So at 178 Expenditures for newspapers gifts recreation vacation and church tithes are not to be considered in awarding final periodic spousal support Similarly expenses attributable to entertainment including cable television service are not necessary for a spouse maintenance and should not be considered s in fixing an award of final periodic spousal support See Prestenback 08 1457 at p 8 9 So at 178 3d The trial court is vested with great discretion in making determinations regarding support and its judgment will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of that discretion Mayes v Mayes 98 2228 p 6 La App 1st Cir 99 5 11 743 So 1257 1261 2d During the trial Ms Jordan testified that she was employed by Southern University as an office coordinator performing administrative and clerical duties on a probationary but full time status Ms Jordan educational background s included high school and two years of college She testified at trial that she was in to good health was almost forty years old and had recently enrolled in school to enhance her knowledge and to get a better job At the time of trial she was earning an hourly wage of 10 Her gross 28 paycheck which she received biweekly was approximately 846 Further 00 Ms Jordan testified that she was to receive a four percent pay increase that had not yet gone into effect at the time of trial Ms Jordan further testified that her net biweekly income was 242 and she explained that numerous expenses were 00 automatically deducted from her paycheck including her taxes These expenses included the following monthly deductions attributable solely to her car note over 300 health insurance 00 00 72 and retirement 00 148 Ms Jordan admitted that 526 in monthly expenses that were deducted 00 from her paycheck were attributable to Asya car note loan for her daughter school tuition s 00 354 repayment of a 00 100 health insurance 00 72 Ms Jordan conceded that when her daughter finished graduate school she would no longer have these monthly expenses Ms Jordan itemized her other monthly expenses which were not deducted from her check as follows rent meal expense 00 525 auto insurance 00 150 grocery and 00 150 cell phone in lieu of a landline phone 00 64 and 5 Ms Jordan did not specify the amount deducted for taxes 6 At trial Ms Jordan testified her car note was 300 something the exact amount of the expense was not provided 7 The health insurance expense of 72 was deducted from Ms Jordan paycheck on a bi 00 s weekly basis However she testified that the insurance covered both her and her daughter and she did not know how much the insurance would cost if it only covered her At trial she conceded That fine when Mr Jordan attorney attributed one half of this expense to her s s daughter Asya 8 Ms Jordan testified that a biweekly deduction of 74 was taken from her check to fund her 00 retirement 5 recreational expense 00 150 Ms Jordan also stated that she also incurred utility expenses for both water and electricity but she did not provide the amount of these expenses Based on these figures we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its great discretion in determining that Ms Jordan failed to establish that she would have a continued need for support after the twoyear period Based on the evidence submitted at trial we calculate that Ms Jordan snet monthly income two years later would have been approximately 1 We derive this figure by 65 123 adding 524 33 Ms Jordan net monthly income 242 biweekly 526 s 00 the monthly expenses previously deducted from her paycheck that were attributable to Asya and 73 32 the four percent raise she expected to receive calculated on her 1monthly gross income The monthly expenses that 00 833 Ms Jordan submitted to the court as maintenance expenses that were paid from her net earnings i rent automobile insurance and groceries did not exceed e 65 123 1 At trial Ms Jordan testified that if she paid her other expenses she was unable to keep her rent expense current Her rent expense was 525 per 00 month but she was also incurring an equivalent expense at that time on behalf of her adult daughter Accordingly the record does not establish that her need would 9 We express no opinion as to whether the trial court properly included the expenses attributable to Asya in determining Ms Jordan entitlement to spousal support for the initial twoyear s period 10 We determined Ms Jordan net monthly income by multiplying her net biweekly pay times s the 26 pay periods within the year which figure we then divided by 12 11 We determined Ms Jordan gross monthly income based on her gross biweekly pay of s 00 846 in the same manner explained above in relation to her net monthly income 12 Even if we were to include her cell phone expense as part of her maintenance based on the fact that she did not maintain a land line phone her itemized expenses would still not exceed her net income 6 continue beyond the twoyear period in question and we find no abuse of the trial s court great discretion in limiting the duration of the spousal support award III CONCLUSION For these reasons we affirm the trial court judgment Appeal costs are s assessed against Ms Jordan AFFIRMED 13 Ms Jordan contends that the trial court erred in limiting the duration of the award because La C art 115 provides The obligation of spousal support is extinguished upon the remarriage of She asserts that because neither of these events has the obligee or the death of either party occurred in the instant case the trial court erred in limiting the award to a two year duration We find no merit in this argument La C art 112A authorized the trial court to determine the duration of final support Accordingly the trial court was authorized to award support that terminated after a set period of time comment c See La C art 112 Revision Comments 7 1997
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
