Case Name: Gita Kamthan SAXENA v. Ram Shanker SAXENA
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1987-12-08
Citations: 518 So. 2d 1098
Docket Number: No. 87-CA-325
Parties: Gita Kamthan SAXENA v. Ram Shanker SAXENA.
Judges: Before KLIEBERT, BOWES and GOTHARD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 518
Pages: 1098–1101

Head Matter:
Gita Kamthan SAXENA v. Ram Shanker SAXENA.
No. 87-CA-325.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 8, 1987.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1988.
Robert C. Lowe, Edith H. Morris, Lowe, Stein, Hoffman & Allweiss, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant, Ram Shanker Saxena.
Sydney J. Parlongue, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee, Gita Kamthan Saxena.
Before KLIEBERT, BOWES and GOTHARD, JJ.

Opinion:
KLIEBERT, Judge.
The husband filed a rule for a reduction in previously ordered alimony payments. The wife responded with an exception of no cause of action. Following extensive arguments, which went beyond and far afield of a hearing on an exception of no cause of action, the trial judge maintained the exception. We amend, and as amended, affirm.
It is true, as argued by the counsel for husband-appellant, that the trial judge was in direct violation of La.C.C.P. Art. 931 and erred in considering evidence in sustaining the exception of no cause of action. The purpose of the exception of no cause of action is to question whether any legal remedy is available to the plaintiff under the allegations of the petition. The exception is triable on the face of the plaintiff's petition. La.C.C.P.Art. 931. Sanborn v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 448 So.2d 91 (La.1984); Ustica Enterprises v. Costello, 434 So.2d 137 (5th Cir.1983). Thus, as we view it the issue before us on this appeal is whether the husband's rule to reduce alimony and child support alleges sufficient facts to support a cause of action. The only allegation in the husband's pleadings is:
"... that his circumstances have changed to such a degree and extent, including without limitation, a diminution in his income and ability to pay, that mover is entitled to a decrease in the alimony and child support payments previously rendered herein."
Under our present jurisprudence, once the amount of alimony pendente lite has been set, the party seeking a change must show that the change in circumstances of one or both of the parties between the time of the previous judgment setting the amount and the time for modification of that judgment. Sonfield v. Deluca, 385 So.2d 232 (La.1980). Although the notice pleadings of our federal system has highly influenced pleadings in Louisiana and re- suited in the acceptance by practicing attorneys and the judiciary of pleadings which are barely more than notice of a claim, our procedural law (C.C.P. Art. 891) still requires fact pleading.
In considering the validity of an exception of no cause of action all well pleaded facts are accepted as true. But, so-called allegations which are nothing more than conclusions are disregarded. Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter, 383 So.2d 330 (La.1980). The petition must set forth the material facts upon which a cause of action is based; the allegation must be ultimate facts; conclusions of law or fact and evi-dentiary facts will not be considered. Wheelahan v. State of Louisiana through the Louisiana State Claims Review Board, 376 So.2d 576 (4th Cir.1979). The reasons for having fact pleadings is to advise the opposing litigant of the material facts which constitute the cause so that he may not be surprised or unprepared for trial. See Charlida, Inc. v. Superior Oil Co., 469 So.2d 448 (3rd Cir.1985).
In our view the allegation here is nothing more than a conclusion that the facts to be shown at trial will prove that he had a reduction in income sufficient to justify a reduction in the previously set alimony. To meet the legal requirements for fact pleadings the pleadings should state the ultimate facts upon which the conclusion is based, i.e., the amount of the husband's income at the time the alimony was previously set and the amount of his present income. Absent such an allegation which shows on the face of the pleadings the amount and extent of his diminution in income, the pleadings are not sufficient to state a cause of actipn.
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling and remand the case to the trial court and the husband is given fifteen (15) days from the date this ruling became final in which to amend his pleadings to state a cause of action.
AMENDED AND AS AMENDED, AFFIRMED.
BOWES, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.