Court Opinion

ID: 9657911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:41:00.246914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:49.333750
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the denial of John B. Stuart’s petition to modify his periodic-alimony obligation. I dissent, however, from the no-opinion affirmance with regard to the trial court’s denial of a credit to Stuart for his mistaken overpayment of alimony, because I believe that Stuart proved his entitlement to a credit and that the trial court’s denial of that credit is inequitable. See generally DeBlanc v. Mitchell, 868 So.2d 1138, 1139 (La.Ct.App. 1979), and Brabham v. Brabham, 950 So.2d 1098, 1103 (Miss.Ct.App.2007).
THOMAS, J., concurs.