Case Name: Stephanie ASHE, wife of Ronald J. RAKOSKY v. Ronald J. RAKOSKY
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-03-07
Citations: 275 So. 2d 421
Docket Number: No. 5031
Parties: Stephanie ASHE, wife of Ronald J. RAKOSKY v. Ronald J. RAKOSKY.
Judges: Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 421–423

Head Matter:
Stephanie ASHE, wife of Ronald J. RAKOSKY v. Ronald J. RAKOSKY.
No. 5031.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 7, 1973.
Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973.
Writ Refused June 11, 1973.
Philip R. Riegel, Jr., Sydney J. Par-longue, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Joseph Meyer, Jr., Rakosky & Meyer, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
A husband who left a $12,000-a-year job in anticipation of entering private law practice appeals from the rejection of his rule to suspend or reduce his wife's alimony pendente lite, C.C. art. 148, because of his loss of income.
We first note that circumstances beyond the husband's control reduced to $12,000 the $13,000 salary he earned when the $350 alimony was fixed by consent. We conclude a reduction to $325 is required on this basis.
We do not disagree that the husband's alimony obligation ought not prevent his attempting private practice, and that a decreased income from practice should be considered in reviewing the amount of his alimony obligation. But here the only evidence of substantial loss in income is that the husband quit his salaried job, which his supervisor testified remained available to him. He had not yet decided what practice opportunity to- pursue, and did not anticipate "any kind of firm decision in the next three weeks. If necessary, I can go longer. I don't want to rush into something."
A capable husband may not avoid his alimony obligation by quitting work; Viser v. Viser, 179 So.2d 672 (La.App.1965). After the husband had begun practice and the trial court could consider his actual circumstances, further reduction might be justified. But here the refusal to suspend was correct.
The judgment on rule is amended to reduce alimony to $325 and is otherwise affirmed.