Case Name: Cynthia O. RIVETTE v. Dennis W. RIVETTE
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 2005-04-06
Citations: 899 So. 2d 873
Docket Number: No. 2004-1630
Parties: Cynthia O. RIVETTE v. Dennis W. RIVETTE.
Judges: Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, J. DAVID PAINTER and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 899
Pages: 873–881

Head Matter:
Cynthia O. RIVETTE v. Dennis W. RIVETTE.
No. 2004-1630.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
April 6, 2005.
Rehearing Denied May 11, 2005.
Richard R. Kennedy Richard R. Kennedy, III, Elizabeth A. Dugal, Lafayette, Louisiana, for Defendant/Appellant: Dennis W. Rivette.
Anthony Thibodeaux, Lafayette, Louisiana, for Plaintiff/Appellee: Cynthia O. Riv-ette.
Court composed of ULYSSES GENE THIBODEAUX, Chief Judge, J. DAVID PAINTER and JAMES T. GENOVESE, Judges.

Opinion:
1 .GENOVESE, Judge.
This is an appeal by the husband from a judgment dismissing a cause of action for divorce based upon the reconciliation of the parties. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Cynthia and Dennis Rivette were married on May 9, 1998, and thereafter established their matrimonial domicile in Iberia Parish. They have one child, Aiden, born March 8, 1999. On November 1, 2003, the parties separated when Mr. Rivette moved out of the marital domicile.
Initially, Mr. and Mrs. Rivette saw a mediator in an effort to amicably negotiate the many details associated with the impending dissolution of their marriage. With the assistance of the mediator, the couple purportedly negotiated both a joint custody arrangement and a partition of their community property.
On December 16, 2003, Mrs. Rivette filed a petition for divorce in accordance with La.Civ.Code art. 102 ("102 divorce") seeking joint custody of the couple's son, and seeking to have child support set in an amount to which the parties allegedly agreed in mediation. On December 23, 2003, Mr. Rivette accepted service and waived citation of the petition for divorce.
The efforts made toward perfecting an amicable arrangement purportedly fell through in the early part of January of 2004. At that time, Mrs. Rivette executed both the joint custody agreement and the community property settlement. Mr. Riv-ette, however, signed the community property settlement, but refused to sign the joint custody agreement. He instead demanded that the mediator release the community property settlement to him so that it could be recorded. The mediator refused to release the community property settlement document to Mr. Rivette based on his understanding that the documents were part of a "package deal."
|j>On March 1, 2004, Mrs. Rivette filed a rule to terminate the community property regime alleging that she and Mr. Rivette had been living separate and apart without reconciliation since the filing of the original petition in this proceeding on December 16, 2003. Mrs. Rivette signed an affidavit dated February 17, 2004, verifying that the facts contained in her rule to terminate the community property were true and correct. Mr. Rivette accepted service and waived citation of the rule to terminate the community property on February 5, 2004.
On March 25, 2004, Mrs. Rivette filed motions to dismiss her previously filed petition for 102 divorce, and to dismiss her rule to terminate community property due to "a period of reconciliation of the parties."
On April 13, 2004, Mr. Rivette filed a rule to show cause asking the court to order the mediator to release the community property settlement documents for re-cordation.
On April 26, 2004, Mrs. Rivette filed a rule for interim and final spousal support wherein she stated that since the filing of the petition for divorce on December 16, 2003, "the parties reconciled for a brief period of time, but have since physically separated again."
This matter was heard on June 30, 2004, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Mrs. Rivette dismissing her petition for 102 divorce on the basis of reconciliation. Mr. Rivette appeals.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
Mr. Rivette brings this appeal assigning as error the trial court's dismissal of this divorce action on the grounds of reconciliation. The trial court concluded that a reconciliation had occurred; thus, it extinguished the cause of action for divorce. Finding no manifest error, we agree.
| % A divorce action filed pursuant to La. Civ.Code art. 102 provides:
Except in the case of a covenant marriage, a divorce shall be granted upon motion of a spouse when either spouse has filed a petition for divorce and upon proof that one hundred eighty days have elapsed from the service of the petition, or from the execution of written waiver of the service, and that the spouses have lived separate and apart continuously for at least one hundred eighty days prior to the filing of the rule to show cause, (emphasis added).
Mrs. Rivette did not file a motion for judgment of divorce. Instead, she filed a motion to dismiss her petition for divorce on grounds of reconciliation alleging that the parties had lived together after their separation.
In his testimony, Mr. Rivette asserts that the parties did not resume living together as husband and wife. Mr. Rivette contends this is evidenced by the fact that the he moved in with a friend, Rule Boutte, and Mr. Boutte's girlfriend, Nicole Douet. Mr. Boutte confirmed that Mr. Rivette pays rent to live with him; Mr. Boutte also stated that Mr. Rivette moved his clothes into Mr. Boutte's home, and that later Mr. Rivette moved other items to his home such as his lawn mower, pressure washer, and ice chests. Though Mr. Boutte works offshore on a 14/14 schedule, he testified that he was not aware of Mr. Rivette ever moving back into the marital home with Mrs. Rivette. Likewise, Ms. Douet testified she had no knowledge of a reconciliation between Mr. and Mrs. Riv-ette.
Mrs. Rivette, however, testified that Mr. Rivette did return to live with her and their son in mid-February 2003. Mrs. Riv-ette testified that he returned home with a large suitcase of his clothes and that she and Mr. Rivette resumed living together as a couple, mutually cared for their son, resumed their sexual relationship, and went out together in social settings with family and friends as a couple until they again separated early in March 2003. Mrs. Rivette contends that Mr. Rivette listed the marital home's address on his driver's license when it came up for renewal in lateJFebruary4 2003 because they had reconciled.
The appropriate test for determining whether the Rivettes were entitled to a final divorce pursuant to La.Civ.Code art. 102 is whether the parties lived separate and apart continuously for 180 days, without reconciliation, after service of such petition on the other party, or the signing of a waiver of service by the other party. Lemoine v. Lemoine, 97-1626 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/1/98), 715 So.2d 1244. In Lemoine, this court stated:
Reconciliation occurs when there is a mutual intent to reestablish the marital relationship on a permanent basis. Woods, [27,199 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/23/95) ], 660 So.2d 134. "The motives and intentions of the parties to restore and renew the marital relationship is a question of fact determined by the trial judge from the totality of the circumstances." Id. at 135.
Lemoine, 715 So.2d at 1248-49.
The standard of review for courts of appeal is well established. In Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840, 844 (La.1989), the supreme court stated:
It is well settled that a court of appeal may not set aside a trial court's or a jury's finding of fact in the absence of "manifest error" or unless it is "clearly wrong," and where there is conflict in the testimony, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review, even though the appellate court may feel that its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable.... Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong.
In its oral reasons for judgment the trial court expressly stated:
I find, based on my observations and appraisal of the testimony of Dennis Wayne Rivette, that he did in fact move back with his wife in February. I'm not too sure of [sic] manipulation was not the reason that he led her to believe they were reconciling, she felt, for her own reasons, that because of her son, Aiden, and also because she wanted to motivate him to do something for her.
It is clear that the trial court made a demeanor and credibility determination.
The function of the appellate court is not to superimpose its judgment upon a trial court. The trier of fact is in the best position to assess the demeanor and judge |Rthe credibility of witnesses when there is conflicting testimony.
Following our review of the record, we do not find that the trial court was clearly wrong in ruling that a reconciliation had occurred in this case. The trial court considered the demeanor and credibility of the parties and witnesses, and concluded that Mr. and Mrs. Rivette had reconciled, and therefore, did not have the continuous separation required for the 102 divorce. The trial court's finding that a reconciliation took place is reasonably supported by the record and is not manifestly erroneous.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to the appellant, Mr. Dennis W. Rivette.
AFFIRMED.
PAINTER, J. dissents and assigns written reasons.