Case Name: Lena Vallot CASTILLE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Albert Richard CASTILLE, Defendant and Appellant
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1978-05-24
Citations: 358 So. 2d 1002
Docket Number: No. 6447
Parties: Lena Vallot CASTILLE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Albert Richard CASTILLE, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 358
Pages: 1002–1003

Head Matter:
Lena Vallot CASTILLE, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Albert Richard CASTILLE, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 6447.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
May 24, 1978.
Michael Harson, Lafayette, for defendant and appellant.
Dennis J. Vidrine, Lafayette, for plaintiff and appellee.
Before CULPEPPER, DOMENGEAUX and WATSON, JJ.

Opinion:
CULPEPPER, Judge.
The defendant husband appeals from a judgment awarding alimony pendente lite in the sum of $200 per month to the plaintiff wife. The plaintiff wife answered the appeal seeking an increase to $600 per month.
As to the constitutional issue, our Supreme Court recently considered the constitutionality of LSA-C.C. Article 148 in Williams v. Williams, 331 So.2d 438 (La.1976). In light of that decision, we find no merit to the appellant's contention that Civil Code Article 148 deprives him of equal protection or due process of law under La. Const.1974, Article 1, Sections 2 or 3.
Appellant also contends that he is entitled to a set-off or credit for $26,000 of community funds held by the wife. He bases his claim on the decision in Nelson v. Nelson, 311 So.2d 268 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1974), amended on rehearing at 318 So.2d 68 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1975). We find the facts of that case distinguishable from the case now before us. In Nelson the wife withdrew all of the monies in each community bank account and then purchased cashier's checks. She did this without her husband's knowledge and deposited the money in accounts of others. She had complete control over these funds. In the present case, the record reflects that Mrs. Castille took half the money in each account held by herself and Mr. Castille. We are not sure if this was done with appellant's consent, or even when this transfer occurred.
In a similar case, Hartley v. Hartley, 349 So.2d 1258 (La.1977), our Supreme Court questioned the results in the Nelson case. Having distinguished Nelson on its facts, the Court went on to emphasize that for compensation to take place, each claim must be equally liquidated and demandable. In Hartley, the Court found the husband had, at best, a potential claim against his wife for community funds, and that compensation or set-off was, therefore, not available to him as a defense against the wife's claim for alimony.
We find Mr. Castille has failed to show that his wife owes him a debt equally liquidated and demandable. For that reason, no set-off is' available to him in these proceedings.
We also find no abuse of discretion in the amount of $200 per month alimony pendente lite awarded by the trial court.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against defendant-appellant.
AFFIRMED.