Court Opinion

ID: 9353099
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-10 21:04:40.293196+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:33.077133
License: Public Domain

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

                           STATE OF LOUISIANA

                             COURT OF APPEAL

                                FIRST CIRCUIT

                                NO. 2022 CA 0493

                      DAVID GRADON CLEMONS, JR.

                                        W* Nalk

                         KRISTEN RENEE DIABLE

                                Judgment Rendered.           JAN 10 2023

   ky              *      .*                *         *     *      *          *   *

                                Appealed from the
                          21'   Judicial District Court
                      In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa
                                State of Louisiana
                            Case No. 2020- 0000650

                The Honorable Jeffery Oglesbee, Judge Presiding

                                   F:   F     C   x   eF

J. Gamson Jordan                            Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Hammond, LA                                 David Gradon Clemons, Jr.
Nicholas J. Muscarello
Hammond, LA

Tracy E. Gold                               Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
Covington, LA                               Kristin Renee Diable

            BEFORE: WELCH, PENZATO, AND LANIER, JJ.
LANIER, J.

        The plaintiff, David Gradon Clemons, Jr.,                    appeals from the Twenty -First

Judicial     District    Court' s judgment declaring the                  March    20,    2019      marriage

ceremony between Mr. Clemons and the defendant, Kristen Renee Diable, to be

valid and in compliance with Louisiana Civil Code article 87, et seq.                                 In this

memorandum opinion, we affirm the trial court' s declaratory judgment.

        Mr. Clemons and Ms. Diable began a romantic relationship in 2017, during
which      Ms.    Diable      became        pregnant. The        couple   then    had    a"    commitment

ceremony"         on    December       8,     2018.       Both    Mr.     Clemons       and.   Ms.    Diable

acknowledged           that   the   commitment ceremony was                not an official          marriage

ceremony,        since they did not apply for nor obtain a marriage license,                         and the

officiant of the ceremony was not licensed to perform marriages. The purpose of

the commitment ceremony was to celebrate with their family and close friends.

        The couple then planned to become legally married.                          They arranged for

Dominique         LaToya       Papillon -Herr,    a   wedding       officiant     licensed     to    perform

weddings in Louisiana, to meet them in New Orleans on March 20, 2019, with two

of their friends serving as witnesses.                The ceremony was to take place in Ms.

Herr' s office, but Ms. Herr notified the group that she was running late to her

office and suggested they wait for her at a bar next door to her office.                            Ms. Herr

met the group at the bar and askedthem to follow her to her office, but the group

stated they would rather perform the ceremony at the bar.                        Ms. Herr performed a

 signing ceremony,"           which consists of the wedding couple, two witnesses, the

officiant,   and an agreement by the couple to be married.                        An official marriage

license, as well as a commemorative marriage certificate, were signed by all the

parties.

        Ms. Diable gave birth on April 9, 2019,                    Mr. Clemons filed a petition for

custody in Tangipahoa Parish on March 2, 2020, requesting joint custody with him

                                                      2
designated as the domiciliary parent, and alleging that Ms. Diable has substance

abuse and mental health issues. On or about April 8, 2020, Ms. Diable filed a

petition for divorce pursuant to La. C. C. art. 102 in Orleans Parish, claiming that

she and Mr. Clemons were unofficially married in New Orleans on December 8,

2018, and then legally married in New Orleans on March 20, 2019.         Ms. Diable

claimed that since that time, she had separated from Mr. Clemons, who resided in

Tangipahoa Parish, and moved with the child to Orleans Parish. She also claimed

that Mr. Clemons has mental health, substance abuse, and anger issues, and has

been abusive toward her and the child. She therefore requested that there be joint

custody of the child with her designated as the domiciliary parent. Ms.      Diable

further requested a partitioning of the community property and a judgment of

separation of property.

      On May 6, 2020, Mr. Clemons filed a supplemental and amending petition

for custody, motion for declaratory judgment, and alternatively petition for divorce

pursuant to La. C. C. art. 102. Mr. Clemons alleged therein that he and Ms. Diable

applied for and received a marriage license on February 27,      2019,   which they

signed on March 20, 2419; however, no vows or rings were exchanged, and the

marriage license was never filed and subsequently expired.   Mr. Clemons therefore

attested that no legal marriage between himself and Ms. Diable had ever taken

place, and requested that a declaratory judgment be issued, declaring that he and

Ms. Diable had never been married. In the alternative, Mr. Clemons petitioned the

court for a divorce pursuant to La. C. C. art. 102.

      On January 10,      2022, the district court rendered and signed a judgment

declaring that the ceremony conducted on March 20, 2019 was a valid marriage

ceremony between Mr. Clemons and Ms. Diable and in compliance with La. C. C.

art. 87, et seq.   On February 4, 2022, Mr. Clemons filed the instant suspensive

appeal of the January 10, 2022 declaratory judgment.

                                           3
         Mr. Clemons' s sole assignment of error is that the district court abused its

discretion by finding that the purported marriage of March 20, 2019, that occurred

in a bar with no vows, exchange of rings or terms of endearment, or any type of

ceremony was nevertheless legally valid. In reviewing the trial court' s findings as

to whether a valid marriage occurred, its factual findings should not be reversed on

appeal absent manifest error, or when those findings are deemed as clearly wrong.

See Stobart v. State through Dept. ofTransp. and Development, 617 So. 2d 880,

882 ( La. 1993).

         Louisiana Civil Code art. 87 states that a valid contract of marriage in

Louisiana requires the absence of legal impediment', a marriage ceremony, and

free consent of the parties expressed at the ceremony.                   A marriage ceremony

requires the participation of both parties, and a third person who is qualified or

reasonably believed by the parties to be qualified to perform the marriage

ceremony.          All three persons must be physically present at the ceremony when it is

performed.         La. C. C. art. 91.

         It is undisputed that Mr. Clemons, Ms. Diable, and Ms. Herr were all present

when the purported ceremony occurred.                  Ms. Diable testified she contacted Ms.

Herr and requested that she be the officiant of the ceremony,                     and both Mr.

Clemons and Ms. Diable stated that they believed Ms. Herr was legally authorized

to perform marriage ceremonies.             Ms. Herr stated in her deposition that she was

legally authorized to perform marriage ceremonies. See La. R.S. 9: 201.                 Ms. Herr

further stated that, during the purported ceremony, when she asked Mr. Clemons

and Ms. Diable if it was their intent to be married, they both said " yes."

  The Louisiana Civil Code lists the legal impediments as: an existing marriage; parties of the
same sex, parties with blood relationship; and a party being under the age of sixteen. La. C. C.
arts. 88- 90. 1.   We note that the legal impediment of same sex has been declared unconstitutional
by the United States Supreme Court and Louisiana Supreme Court. See 4bergefell v. Hodges,
576 U. S. 644, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 609 ( 2015); Constanza v. Caldwell, 167 So. 3d 619.
Regardless, Mr. Clemons has not raised the issue of a legal impediment to the marriage.

                                                   4
         Mr. Clemons argues that the marriage cannot be valid since no rings or vows

were exchanged, and that the marriage license was signed, but was not filed and

subsequently expired.         We initially note that none of these are explicitly required

by La. C. C. art. 87. There is no Louisiana statute, nor any jurisprudence, which

states that an exchange of vows and/or rings is a requirement for a valid marriage.

Furthermore, comment ( d) to the article states that the parties' failure to procure a

marriage license will not prevent the creation of a valid marriage.                   See also

Succession of Jene, 173 So. 2d 857, 861 ( La. App. 4 Cir.              1965).   While La. R.S.

9: 205 states that an officiant may not perform a marriage ceremony until he/ she

has received a license authorizing him/ her to perform that marriage ceremony, it is

silent as to whether the licensed must subsequently be filed in the public records.

         At trial, Ms. Herr' s deposition and photographs of the purported ceremony

were filed into evidence.        It is clear that the marriage license was signed from the

evidence and undisputed by the parties.               Ms. Herr testified in her deposition that

the marriage license was signed by herself and the parties before a " fancy"              or non-

legal    certificate,   was   signed.     Ms. Herr       stated both the legal    and "   fancy"

certificates    were    signed and      appear    in the    photographs.     Additionally,    the

photographs further reflect the parties' consent to be married. Ms. Herr also stated

that the marriage license did not have to be filed to make the marriage valid.

         The evidence indicates that, while the marriage license may not have been

filed,   it was presented to Ms. Herr and signed by the parties at the ceremony,

which would satisfy La. R. S.           9: 205.   The trial court clearly found Ms.       Herr' s

deposition testimony credible, and we do not find that the trial court committed

manifest error in doing so.

         The judgment of the Twenty -First Judicial District court declaring the March

20, 2019 marriage ceremony to be in compliance with La. C. C. art. 87 et seq.,

therefore effecting a valid marriage between the appellant, David Gradon Clemons,

                                                  5
Jr.,   and   the   appellee,   Kristen   Renee       Diable,   is   affirmed.   We   issue   this

memorandum opinion pursuant to Uniform Rules— Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-

16. 1( B).   See Breen v. McMillin, 2018- 0909 ( La. App.             1 Cir. 2125119), 2019 WL

926892, at * 2 ( unpublished). All costs of this appeal are assessed to Mr. Clemons.

        AFFIRMED.

                                                 6
                                   STATE OF LOUISIANA
                                    COURT OF APPEAL
                                       FIRST CIRCUIT

                                          2022 CA 0493

                           DAVID GRADON CLEMONS, JR.

                                           VERSUS

                                 KRISTIN RENEE DIABLE

t   PENZATO, J.,    dissenting.

          I respectfully disagree with the majority opinion affirming the January 10,

    2022 judgment because I do not believe we have jurisdiction over this appeal. Mr.

    Clemons sought a declaratory judgment that the parties "      are not and have never

    been legally married to each other by law."        I find that the January 10,   2022

    judgment is an interlocutory ruling declaring the March 20,           2019 marriage

    ceremony to be valid.       This court' s appellate jurisdiction only extends to final

    judgments. In the absence of a valid final judgment this court lacks subject matter

    jurisdiction and the appeal should be dismissed.     Advanced Leveling &     Concrete

    Solutions v. Lathan Company, Inc., 2017- 1250 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12120/ 18),   268 So.

    3d 1044, 1046 ( en banc).

          Thus, I respectfully dissent.