Jason James Adams VS Nicole Rome Adams (2012CA1232 Consolidated With 2012CA1233)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COiiRT OF APPEAL IRST RCL FC IT 2012 CA 1232 CiW 2012 CA 1233 JASON JAMES ADAMS ERSUS NICOLE ROME ADAMS DATEOFJIIDGMENT MAR 2 5 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTEEN JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT TH NLJMBER 115312 DIV B PARISH OF LAFOURCHE STATE OF LOUISIANA HOIvTORABLE JEROME J B III JUDGE ABERA Catherine R Gauthier Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Jerri G Smitko Jason James Adams Jacques A Beebe Houma Louisiana Rebecca N RobichauY Raceland Louisiana Counsel for Defendant Appellant Nicole Rome Adams BEFORE KLJI PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ N Disposition AFFII2MED r ee o A v G KUHN J appellant Defendant Nicole Rom Adams appeals the trial court judgment s partitioning the community of acquets and gains she shared with her former husband plaintiff Jasor Iames Adarns contending that certain property appellee was incorrectly classified as cornmunit5r and challenging the allocation of a community property asset to her rather thamto Jason VV affirm e Jason and Nicole were divarced after eventeen years of marriage A merits hearing was held on 3ason reqaest for part of the property of the community s tzon as well as his petition to revoke a gratuitous donation for ingratitude T trial court he determined which property from the parYies res detailed descriptive list was ecxive community and allocated the variou assets and liabilities of the community to the parties The trial court specifically found that I was guilty of ingratitude and icale revoked a donation to her from Jason of a princess diamond ring declaring it an cut asset of the community and allocating it to 1V A judgment in conformity with icole the trial court determination was szgned and iec appeal s d On appeal Nicole ur that th txial uur corr deteimined that es ctly attorney fees incurred durin the unar for iminal harges brought against ge Jason were community debts a loan f Jaso parents was a debt of the n ro s community rather than Jason separate obli and Nicole was not entitled to s aYion reimbursement for the loss of value ofa community asset that pa1 sold during the ies marriage Nicole also asserts the triai court ened n alloc an individual ting retirement account IRA in J name to her and in concluding that Jason was s son entitled to revocation ofthe danation of the diannond ring 2 Classification of Debts as ommunit as a Result of Jason Alleged Intentional s Wrong and Denial of Reimbursement fo Claim of Devaluation of Community Asset An cbligation incurred by a s may be e a comt2iunity obiigation or a ouse ther separate obligatiqn La C a 2359 ra i in y a spouse during t igation urred the existence of a community prop regzme f the common interest of the rty r spouses or far the interest of the other spouse is a community obligation La C art 2360 Except as provided in La C art 2363 all obligations incurred by a spouse during the existence af a community property regime are presumed to be community obligations La C art 2361 A separate obligation of a spouse includes one incurred during the existence of a community property regime theu nc l tfar the co interest of the spouses nmon or for the interest of the other spou t3r Gbligation resulting from an intentional e wrong is likewise a separate abiiga to the e that it does not benefit both cn fient spouses the family orthe other s La C art 2 ou 63 Factual findings and cre deterrninations anade in the couxse of valuing iibilzty and allocating assets and liin ttie pz of community property may not bzlities rtition be set aside absent zrianif err eraoet va Benoit ti011 La App 1st Cir se r 76 0 12 8 3d 391 So 1015 101y writ denie 2012 La 998 So 838 1265 12 28 3d The record establishes thax Jason was a working par in Millennium Boat ner Supply It is undisputed that t buslness was a community property asset e Accarding to Nicole after Jason business partner brought crimznai charges against s 7ason for debt that he accumulated v a h4 credit card Jason borrowed ith llennium 000 m 200 fz his parents ta repay the debt Subsequently afker Jason apparently repaid the debt to Millennium Jasan Milleranium partner purehased the parties s 3 interest in the business from Jason and I for 525 in a settlement that icole 000 included withdrawal of the criminal charges against Jason Although criminal charges had not been formally devidence was introduced that the district smissed attorney was no longer pursuing the case against Jason On appeal Nicole maintains that Jason criminal attorney fees incurred s during the community to ward off any prosecution against him are his separate obligations for which she is entitled to reimbursement In tandem with the attorney fees Nicole also claims that the loan of 200 from Jason parents that he used 000 s to repay Millennium before the saie of their community property interest to 7ason s business partner should have beer allocated to Jason as his separate property debt On this record the trial court was entitled to apply the presumption of Article 2361 to these obligations While Nicole insists that the institution of criminal prosecution is sufficient to show Jasods intentional wrongdoing she has failed to show that any misuse of the Millennium credit card by Jason did not benefit the community Thus a reasonable factual basis exists to support the trial court s classification of Jason attorney fees izacurred in defense of threatened criminal s prosecution and the loan of 200 fr4m ni parents to repay Millennium as 000 community obligations See La C ark 2363 sec also Skannal v Bamburg 820 44 La App 2d Cir 1 33 So3d 227 239 writ denied La lOj 27 0707 2010 10 28 5 36 So3d 254 even if wife did not know ef husband sfraudulent conduct where record contained no evidence that the community did not benefit from the wrongdoing wife was liable for the community obligations and Gardes Directional Drilling Inc v Bennett 2001 La App 3d Cir 6 787 So 1201 0080 Ol 2d 05 1204 writ denied 2001 La 10 799 So 1154 evidence 1991 O1 26 2d 4 established that employee shusband and the community benefitted from the money employee stole from her employer Lastly Nicole claims entitlernent to reimbursement for the devaluation of the value of the community property interest in Millennium offering an appraisal that established the parties ownership interest in Millennium was L2 million significantly more that the amount for which the parties sold their Millennium interest But Nicole admitted that she signed the settlement document that conveyed the parties Millennium interest to Jason business partner for 525 And s 000 nothing in the recard establishes a basis to vitiate Nicole consent s Mindful that contracts have the effect of law for the parties we find no error by the trial court in denying this claim See La C art 1983 Allocation of IRA Account Titled in Jason sName to Nicole The procedure by which community property is to be partitioned when the spouses are unable to agree is set forth iLa R 9 We review the allocation S 2801 or assigning of assets and liabiiitizs in the partition ofcommunity property under the abuse of discretion standard Benoit 91 So at 1019 3d s Nicole complaint is that by awarding her the IRA account the trial court overlooked the tax consequences that attach to a disbursement of the monies in the account before she turns 59 She urges that gaven the amount of cash in trust z accounts the trial court erred by not ordering an equalizing payment of cash While it is true that if Nicole withdraws the money before a certain age she will incur a taY liability that Jason will not be required to share it is also true that if she leaves the funds in thz account they will earn interest for which Jason will not benefit See Sherrod v Sherrod 907 97 La App Sth Cir 3 98 25 709 So 2d 352 356 writ denied 98 La 6 720 So 687 relying in part on 57 1121 98j 5 2d Ramstack v Krieger 470 So 162 167 La App 4th Cir wirit denied 474 2d 2d So 1310 La In ligh fthe subst commutiity liabilir aLlocated to 1985 ntial ies Jason with none to Nicole and given the parties tax situation we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in its allocation of the community property IRA account to Nicole Revocation of Donation for Ingratitude A donation inter vivos may be revoked because of ingratitude of the donee La C art 1556 Revocation on acc of ingratitude may take place if the unt donee has been guilty of grievous injuries towards the donor La C art 1557 2 The jurisprudence has held that cruel treatment or grievous injury su to cient revoke a donation may include adultery by a spouse Revision Comment c La C art 1557 2008 A trial court determination as to whether a donee has s committed a grievous injury upon a donor so as to warrant revocation of a donation on account of ingratitude is a factual determination that depends heavily on the facts and circumstances specific to the case Petrie v Michetti 2010 La App 122 Sth Cir llll So 430 440 11 59 3d The parties agree that Christmas 2008 Jason gave Nicole a diamond ring that he purchased for 7 It is likewise undisputed that the parties divorce was 500 granted on the basis ofadultery committed by Nicole On appeal Nicole asserts that t The evidence at triai established that the cash on hand that the parties had consisted of various federal and state tax refunds that each had tendered to their respective attorneys who placed these monies in trust accounts It was undispuied that the refunds were for joint returns filed for several years prior to dissolution of the community ason admitted that in conjunction with his 2010 tax liability the state applied approximately 19 in community refund 000 property amounts and the trial court awarded Nicole reimbursement of one this amount But as of half the date of trial Jason continued to owe the federal government approximately 129 that he 000 conceded was amassing legal interest 6 because the parties apparently reconciled b Iaecember 2009 when she n twe confessed the adultery and Juro 2010 vhen they se the donation of the e arated movable prc was valic complete and insusceptYbl a reb upon perty ocation delivery We find n erre the trial cc in a cancl we pdint out that despite rby z iding s Nicole assertions that Tason did not expressly advise her she should not commit adultery to continue ownership of the ring as her separate property by their consent to enter a marriage the spouses Iegaily owed eac other an obligation of fidelity h See La C art 98 Nicole canfessed aduiterry apparently caused Jason sufficient s grievous injury that he wanied the ring returned to him A reasonable factual basis exists and therefore the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in finding that sconfessed adultery was a g injury upon Jason sufficient to warrant Nicole rzevous revocation of the donation ofttie diarrz xing aad ECREE For thes reaso tlie tri c j pa ns l u ud rtitiar s nerit ir cornmuniry o t gthe acquets and gains be the iQrrner sp a ex revok the gratuitous veen us i ressl ing gift of the diamond rr te N is ffirmed p s a as aga ag rcol eal os s ssed nst c Nicole Rorne darrfls AFFIRIVIEA s Nicoie assertian on appeal that she sh not ba assessed Lhe entirety of the vaiue fthe ring uld because she has chosen to tstain ownership of it is without meriY The rrial cou conrectly allouated the ring as a commuuity a arid Jason ho did noi so requeste was not awarded any set reimbursement for ti rzvoked donatzon e 7
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.
