Case Name: Suzanne Treasa KORSON, wife of Joseph Anthony GAMINO v. Joseph Anthony GAMINO
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1967-02-13
Citations: 199 So. 2d 202
Docket Number: No. 2460
Parties: Suzanne Treasa KORSON, wife of Joseph Anthony GAMINO v. Joseph Anthony GAMINO.
Judges: Before YARRUT, CHASEZ and HALL, JJ-
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 199
Pages: 202–209

Head Matter:
Suzanne Treasa KORSON, wife of Joseph Anthony GAMINO v. Joseph Anthony GAMINO.
No. 2460.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 1967.
On Rehearing June 5, 1967.
David Seelig, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee, on rehearing.
Meunier, Martin & Meunier, Marcel J. Meunier, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before YARRUT, CHASEZ and HALL, JJ-

Opinion:
YARRUT, Judge.
This is an appeal from a final judgment of divorce granted the wife and allowing her alimony, with the rejection of the husband's reconventional demand that he be granted a final divorce.
The suit for a final judgment by the wife followed, in due time, a prior judgment in her favor for a separation from bed and board upon her petition alleging her husband abandoned her. The husband did not answer nor appear, and the wife got her judgment by default, from which no appeal was taken. After the lapse of the required time, she brought the present suit for absolute divorce and alimony, as stated above. There are no children of the marriage.
During the trial of the suit for final divorce, testimony was given by both parties as to the reasons they separated. Their separation took place three months after their marriage. While the district judge heard the testimony, he said he would pay no attention to what caused the separation resulting in the judgment granting the wife a separation from bed and board, since that case was res judicata of such issue. In this the district court was wrong in view of the prevailing jurisprudence viz: The jurisprudence under LSA-C.C. art. 2286 is that a separation judgment is not res judicata of the question of fault in a subsequent divorce proceeding, particularly where neither fault nor alimony was an issue in the separation suit. Barr v. Freeman, La.App., 175 So.2d 649, 653-654; Lloveras v. Reichert, 197 La. 49, 200 So. 817; Randle v. Gallagher, La.App., 169 So.2d 224; Smith v. Smith, La.App., 179 So.2d 433.
Had the trial judge not heard the evidence, the transcript of which is in the record, we would have to remand the case to give both parties a hearing. However, since the record contains the testimony of the parties as to their differences, and cause of their separation, there is no reason to remand the case.
The wife contends the husband abandoned the matrimonial domicile on Dumaine Street. The record shows that the wife, without the consent of her husband, insisted that they live on Dumaine Street which the husband refused, so the wife proceeded to rent quarters on Dumaine Street and have as her boarders some of her lady friends.
We are convinced from the testimony that the parties were incompatible. They started quarrelling three months after the marriage, and particularly over whether to live with the wife's parents or in a home selected by the husband. The testimony convinces us that they were guilty of comparative rectitude and were equally responsible for their inability to resume their marital life. However, because there has been no reconciliation between the spouses for a period of more than one year since the judgment of separation from bed and board became final, the wife is entitled to a judgment of divorce. LSA-R.S. 9:302.
As a wife is not entitled to alimony unless she proves her freedom from fault in causing the separation; and as the conclusion is self-evident that she was equally guilty of fault, she is not entitled to alimony.
Accordingly the judgment of the district court is reversed only with respect to the award of alimony, but otherwise affirmed with respect to the judgment of divorce; each party to pay his or her own cost of this appeal.
Judgment reversed in part and affirmed in part.