Case Name: Suzanne Pauline Vollenweider, wife of Nicholas BRESCHER, Jr. v. Nicholas BRESCHER, Jr.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-04-13
Citations: 344 So. 2d 1182
Docket Number: No. 8371
Parties: Suzanne Pauline Vollenweider, wife of Nicholas BRESCHER, Jr. v. Nicholas BRESCHER, Jr.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and LEM-MON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 344
Pages: 1182–1183

Head Matter:
Suzanne Pauline Vollenweider, wife of Nicholas BRESCHER, Jr. v. Nicholas BRESCHER, Jr.
No. 8371.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
April 13, 1977.
Timothy A. O’Brien, III, for plaintiff-appellant.
Paul F. Rogyom, Kenner, for defendant-appellee.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and LEM-MON, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
An ex-wife appeals from a judgment which refused her permanent alimony on the basis of lack of need, despite her uncorroborated testimony that she was usually unable to work a full 40-hour week because she had not fully recuperated from intestinal by-pass surgery for obesity. The trial judge ruled "that the Plaintiff's recent major surgery was of a cosmetic nature and therefore should not be a consideration in her request for alimony."
That reasoning is inconsistent with Ward v. Ward, La.1976, 339 So.2d 839, which holds that a wife's earning capacity is not a factor in fixing alimony. If an ex-wife's total non-use of her ability to work is immaterial to her entitlement to alimony, so is her partial non-use of her ability to work. If an ex-wife is free to not work at all and still collect alimony she is free to work less than 40 hours a week irrespective of her motive for doing so.
We nevertheless affirm because the factual evidence does not otherwise support an award. The ex-wife's 40-hour week pay is $116, or over $464 monthly gross; the ex-husband's monthly gross is $875. The ex-wife's payroll taxes are not shown, but she nets $360 monthly even after insurance premiums. The ex-wife's testimony that her health makes her miss a day or more in about three weeks out of four does not establish that she lacks the approximately $350 a month shown to be the cost of her necessaries.
Affirmed.
. The ex-wife thus would earn over a third of the ex-spouses' combined income. Whether C.C. 160's limitation of alimony to a third of the husband's income implies an analogous limitation to a third of the spouses' combined income is not discussed because we conclude that the wife's needs were not shown to exceed her own income.