Keenan v. Keenan

• Decision Date: 03 February 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–828.,15–828.
• Parties: Stephanie KEENAN v. Horace KEENAN, III.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

186 So.3d 289

Stephanie KEENAN
v.
Horace KEENAN, III.

No. 15–828.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 3, 2016.

186 So.3d 292

E. Grey Burnes Talley, Burnes, Burnes & Talley, Alexandria, LA, for Plaintiff/Appellant, Stephanie Keenan.

186 So.3d 293

Mary K. Beaird, Leesville, LA, for Defendant/Appellant, Horace Keenan, III.

Court composed of MARC T. AMY, BILLY HOWARD EZELL, and DAVID KENT SAVOIE, Judges.

AMY, Judge.

The parties to this matter were formerly married and sought a judicial partition of community property. After a hearing, the trial court entered judgment which ultimately awarded the family home to the former wife and ordered an equalizing payment to the former husband. Both parties appeal. For the following reasons, we amend the judgment in part and affirm as amended; reverse in part; and remand for further proceedings.

Factual and Procedural Background

The parties, Stephanie Keenan and Horace Keenan, III, were married in 1989. Stephanie later sought a divorce. The record indicates that the parties have a son, Xavier, who was a minor at the time the divorce action was instituted but who is now in college. A judgment of divorce was rendered in 2012 which terminated the community of acquets and gains as of December 1, 2011. Thereafter, Stephanie filed a petition for partition of community property.

According to the record, both parties were employed by the United States Army at some point during the marriage. Stephanie indicated that both she and Horace were in the military initially, but she left the service in order for Horace to further his career. After their separation, Stephanie rejoined the military. Previous orders of the trial court awarded Stephanie 50% of Horace's military retirement and $960.00 per month in child support. The record also indicates that both Stephanie and Horace were eligible for Post–9/11 GI benefits.

The record indicates that the parties previously owned two parcels of immovable property, one in Texas and one in Hawaii. The Texas property was unencumbered, but there was a mortgage on the Hawaii property. Stephanie initially received the rental income from both properties, and Horace paid the mortgage on the Hawaii property. However, Horace was later awarded the rental income from both properties starting on July 23, 2012. The Hawaii property was sold before trial, but the parties remained in possession of the Texas property.

The record also indicated that the parties possessed various movables, bank accounts, and savings bonds. Stephanie disputed the community nature of some of these items and their value. Further, both parties sought reimbursement for various items. Horace sought reimbursement for mortgage payments for the Hawaii property, property taxes for the Texas property, utility bills, and expenses associated with the sale of the Hawaii property. Stephanie sought reimbursement for payments she made on a community credit card and tuition expenses for Xavier. She also asserted that Horace had concealed a significant amount of funds from her.

After a trial, the trial court found that each party should retain the community movables in their possession with no equalization payment being required. Further, the trial court determined that Stephanie was entitled to reimbursement totaling $38,456.75 for various items and Horace was entitled to reimbursement totaling $12,424.12 for various items. The trial court awarded possession of the Texas property to Stephanie and, after determining the value of that property to be $98,000.00, awarded an equalizing payment of $22,967.37 to Horace.

Both parties appeal. Horace asserts as error that:

186 So.3d 294

1. The Trial Court erred in failing to include in its calculation all of the community movables, including but not limited to clothes, household items, collectibles, etc., in the possession of Stephanie Keenan both currently and as of the date of the hearing to determine division of community property.

2. The Trial Court's finding that there was a profit generated from the sale of the Hawaii home in the amount of $30,000.00 was clearly erroneous as it failed to consider the fees and other closing costs to be paid to the realtor for the sale of the home.

3. The Trial Court erred in failing to order reimbursement in favor of Horace Keenan for paying the Hawaii home mortgage since the date of termination of the community until the home sold with his separate monies.

4. The Trial Court was manifestly erroneous in failing to award Horace Keenan reimbursement for half the value of the rental income Stephanie Keenan was receiving from the date of termination of the community property regime, December 1st, 2011, until July 23rd, 2012[,] when the court ordered Horace Keenan to receive rental income due to his paying all expenses therefor.

5. The Trial Court erred in failing to award Horace Keenan reimbursement for half of the $8,992.06 he paid with his separate money in order to finalize the sale of the Hawaii home.

6. The Trial Court's finding that rental income should be reimbursed to Stephanie Keenan, for the Texas home, is clearly erroneous.

7. The Trial Court erred in failing to address the savings bonds purchased by Stephanie Keenan with community funds during the marriage as Horace Keenan is entitled to half the value of the bonds that were purchased.

8. The Trial Court erred by failing to award Horace Keenan credit for reimbursement for utilities for the Hawaii home and other random expenses that were paid as a necessary expense for the community when physical proof was introduced into evidence that such expenses occurred and were paid by him.

9. The Court was manifestly erroneous in its ruling as the Written Reasons do not accurately address the issues and the evidence before the Court.

Stephanie's assignments of error are:

[1.] It was error for the Trial Court to find that post-termination rental income on the Texas house was only $10,800.00 by the date of trial.

[2.] It was error for the Trial Court to find expenses Horace Keenan paid on the sale of the Hawaii house to be $11,999.80.

[3.] It was error for the Trial Court to find that Horace Keenan paid Texas real estate taxes (after termination of the community property regime) in the amount of $12,848.44.

[4.] It was error for the Trial Court to require Stephanie Keenan [to] pay the net reimbursement claim before being awarded ownership of the Texas house.

[5.] It was error for the Trial Court to deny Stephanie Keenan's request for reimbursement of her post–9/11 GI Bill benefits used by agreement of the parties for their son, Xavier's college expenses, when Horace Keenan's post–9/11 GI Bill benefits were used by him alone.

186 So.3d 295

[6.] It was error for the Trial Court to not award the former community movables.

Discussion

Trial Court's Reasons

We first address Horace's assignment of error concerning the trial court's written reasons. Horace contends that they are inaccurate and do not comport with the issues. He requests that this court perform a de novo review. Horace does not cite any statutory or jurisprudential authority for such a review.

"Appeals are taken from the judgment, not the reasons for judgment" and the reasons "are merely an explication of the trial court's determinations. They do not alter, amend, or affect the final judgment being appealed[.]" Winbery v. Louisiana College, 13–339, p. 9 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/6/13), 124 So.3d 1212, 1217–18 (quoting Wooley v. Lucksinger, 09–571, 09–584, 09–585, 09–586 (La.4/1/11), 61 So.3d 507, and State in the Interest of Mason, 356 So.2d 530 (La.App. 1 Cir.1977) ), writs denied, 13–2844, 13–2859 (La.4/11/14), 137 So.3d 1215. Further, "[i]n general, if the appellate court believes that the trial court reached the proper result, it will affirm the judgment." David v. David, 12–1051, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/10/13), 117 So.3d 148, 152, writ denied, 13–1541 (La.10/4/13), 122 So.3d 1023. Although we conclude that some of the trial court's awards were manifestly erroneous, it is the judgment that we amend, not the reasons. Accordingly, we find no merit to this assignment of error.

Partition

Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2801(A) addresses the partition of community property, and provides, in relevant part, that:

(4) The court shall then partition the community in accordance with the following rules:

(a) The court shall value the assets as of the time of trial on the merits, determine the liabilities, and adjudicate the claims of the parties.

(b) The court shall divide the community assets and liabilities so that each spouse receives property of an equal net value.

(c) The court shall allocate or assign to the respective spouses all of the community assets and liabilities. In allocating assets and liabilities, the court may divide a particular asset or liability equally or unequally or may allocate it in its entirety to one of the spouses. The court shall consider the nature and source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems relevant. As between the

...