Case Name: Warren HUBER v. Julia Ann HUBER, his wife
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1988-06-07
Citations: 527 So. 2d 382
Docket Number: No. CA 9218
Parties: Warren HUBER v. Julia Ann HUBER, his wife.
Judges: Before SCHOTT, KLEES and PLOTKIN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 527
Pages: 382–383

Head Matter:
Warren HUBER v. Julia Ann HUBER, his wife.
No. CA 9218.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
June 7, 1988.
Rehearing Denied July 19, 1988.
Adelaide Baudier, J.D., Metairie, for plaintiff-appellant.
Frederick P. Heisler, Heisler & Wysocki, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.
Before SCHOTT, KLEES and PLOTKIN, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
Appellant, Warren Huber, filed a rule against his divorced wife, Julia Ann Huber, to terminate post divorce alimony on the ground that he had retired and suffered a reduction in income. The trial court modified the alimony to delete payments of twenty-five percent of incentive and bonus pay from his employment but refused to terminate the fixed alimony of $225 per month. The issue is whether a spouse who retires and suffers a reduction in income from about $4,000 monthly to $938 is entitled, as a matter of law, to termination of all alimony payments to the spouse whose needs are the same.
Appellant had previously brought a motion to reduce or terminate alimony in June 1985 and took an appeal from the trial court's denial of the motion. This court affirmed. Huber v. Huber, 499 So.2d 1263 (La.App. 4th Cir.1986). Appellant's present burden is the same as then, to prove a change in circumstances from the time the alimony was last considered. Appellant established that his income has been drastically reduced as a result of his voluntary retirement, but the trial court refused to terminate the alimony under the circumstances.
Appellant is fifty-nine years of age. He stated that he retired to escape the pressures of his job and built a $70,000 retirement home in Alabama with funds saved by him and his present wife. He estimated his income, combined with that of his present wife, was over $1900 per month of which about half is from the separate property of his wife. In 1986 their combined income was over $4500 per month. The principal reason for the difference is appellant's voluntary retirement. In 1986 they also received interest from savings which were spent on their home in 1987.
LSA-C.C.P. art. 160 authorizes the court to allow the spouse, who has not been at fault and has not sufficient means for support, permanent alimony out of the property and earnings of the other spouse. In his own testimony at trial of the rule to terminate alimony appellant specifically admitted that appellee's circumstances have not changed since the last time they were in court. Thus, the underlying basis for ap-pellee's entitlement to alimony that she has not sufficient means for support, is undisputed. The trial court has the discretion to allow her permanent alimony and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
PLOTKIN, J., dissents with written reasons.