Case Name: Audrey Rahn GRIFFITH v. Warren A. GRIFFITH
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1973-11-30
Citations: 286 So. 2d 671
Docket Number: No. 6048
Parties: Audrey Rahn GRIFFITH v. Warren A. GRIFFITH.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, BOUTALL and FLEMING, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 286
Pages: 671–674

Head Matter:
Audrey Rahn GRIFFITH v. Warren A. GRIFFITH.
No. 6048.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Nov. 30, 1973.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 8, 1974.
Writ Refused March 1, 1974.
F. Irvin Dymond, Anita H. Ganucheau, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Reed, Reed & Reed, Floyd J. Reed, and Bruce G. Reed, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before SAMUEL, BOUTALL and FLEMING, JJ.

Opinion:
SAMUEL, Judge.
The litigants herein, Audrey Rahn Griffith and Warren A. Griffith, were divorced from each other on July 3, 1959. The divorce judgment granted custody of the three children born of the marriage to the mother and condemned the father to pay alimony for their support at the rate of $12 per week for each child. On February 28, 1973, when the two elder children were more than 21 years of age, Mrs. Griffith filed a motion and rule seeking a judgment making all past due child support payments executory and increasing the amount to be paid for the support of the youngest child, Craig Alan Griffith, who then was 17 years of age. She alleged her former husband had not made child support payments for approximately six years.
The defendant alternatively filed a dilatory and two peremptory exceptions to the motion and rule. Those exceptions were: vagueness; no cause of action based on the allegation that more than five years had elapsed without action taken; and the three years prescription set forth in LSA-C.C. Art. 3538, which provides that arrear-ages of alimony are prescribed by three years.
Following trials of the exceptions and the merits, two judgments were rendered on March 26, 1973. The first denied the exceptions of vagueness and no cause of action and maintained the exception of three years prescription, limiting the demand for past due child support payments to three years or a total of $1,872. The second awarded Mrs. Griffith $1,872 for past due child child support and increased the amount of alimony for the support of the one child Craig, to the sum of $200 per month. The defendant suspensively appealed from that part of the judgment which awarded Mrs. Griffith $1,872 and devolutively appealed from that part of the judgment which granted an increase in child support.
Thereafter, prior to the time the record was completed and lodged in this court, defendant filed a motion to terminate child support payments to Craig based on the allegation that on June 17 (the record reveals June 12 is the correct date), 1973, Craig had become 18 years of age and thus had attained his majority under LSA-C.C. Art. 37, as amended and reenacted by Act 98 of 1972. Following trial thereon, the motion was denied. The defendant also has appealed from that judgment.
In this court Mrs. Griffith has filed a motion to dismiss that part of the appeals which relates to the increase in child support payments, alleging the judgment granting the increase was rendered upon consent of the parties.
ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS
The record does not support the allegation that the increase in alimony was based upon the consent of the parties to the litigation. On this fact alone the motion must be denied. However, we note that the question is purely academic. As will be pointed out in our discussion of the merits, in this court appellant makes no contention regarding the increase per se; he does not ask that we disallow the increase itself; his contention is that the total alimony award must be either disallowed or terminated in its entirety. Our firmly established rule is that on appeal matters which are not urged in argument or in brief are considered abandoned. Thus, the increase alone is not an issue on this appeal.
. Terry v. Lagasse, La.App., 266 So.2d 231; Benjamin v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., La.App., 264 So.2d 251; Circle R. Leasing, Inc. v. Johnson, La.App., 242 So.2d 625; Keller v. Keller, La.App., 220 So.2d 745; LeDay v. New York Fire & Marine Underwriters, Inc., La.App., 203 So.2d 562; Steele v. Ruiz, La.App., 202 So.2d 376; see 2B La.Dig. Appeal & Error, 1078(1).