Thomason v. Thomason

• Decision Date: 06 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. 00-522.,00-522.
• Citation: 776 So.2d 553
• Parties: Barbara Ann Hughes THOMASON, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Roger Randolph THOMASON, Sr., Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

776 So.2d 553

Barbara Ann Hughes THOMASON, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Roger Randolph THOMASON, Sr., Defendant/Appellant.

No. 00-522.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

December 6, 2000.

Rehearing Denied February 21, 2001.

Lee W. Boyer, Lake Charles, LA, Counsel for Plaintiff.

Dennis R. Sumpter, Sulpher, LA, Counsel for Defendant.

(Court composed of NED E. DOUCET, Jr., Chief Judge, HENRY L. YELVERTON and JOHN D. SAUNDERS, Judges).

DOUCET, Chief Judge.

The Defendant, Roger Randolph Thomason, appeals the trial court's determination that, although the marriage was invalid, Barbara Ann Hughes Thomason was in good faith and entitled to the civil effects of marriage as a putative spouse.

Barbara Thomason filed for a divorce in December 1998. In his answer to the petition for divorce, Mr. Thomason stated that no marriage had taken place. A hearing was held on December 6, 1999, at which the following facts were brought to light. The parties met in a sanitarium where both were being treated for tuberculosis. After being released they continued to see each other and on April 5, 1958, Roger asked Barbara to go to Mississippi with him to get married. They went to the courthouse in Port Gibson, Mississippi and obtained a marriage license. At this point the parties' version of events diverge. Barbara testified that they then went to a house and spoke to a man. Although no ceremony was held, she thought this was the justice of the peace and that she was married to Roger. They left the house and checked into a hotel together. She testified that Roger gave her a wedding ring. The next day they returned to Louisiana.

Roger disagreed with this account. At the hearing, he testified that after getting the license they were unable to find a justice of the peace; that they never went to anyone's house but simply checked into a hotel. He testified that he knew no marriage had taken place. It is undisputed that from that time until Barbara left the matrimonial domicile, the two held themselves out as married.

On December 6, 1999, the court held a hearing to determine the issues of marriage and putative spouse status. After hearing the evidence of both parties. The trial court made the following findings:

From the testimony of both parties, the Court has determined that even though Barbara Hughes Thomason "believed" that they were married on April 5, 1958, in reality, they were not. It is this Court's opinion that Roger Randolph Thomason took advantage of Barbara's ignorance about marriage and deliberately did not say that they were not married after leaving the home of the justice of the peace and never told Barbara. Although Roger testified that one time during the marriage, he told Barbara that they were not legally married, this Court does not find his testimony to be credible.

. . . .

This Court has determined that Barbara Ann Hughes Thomason did not know during all the years she was together with Roger that her marriage was defective in the eyes of the law. This does not mean that she is to blame for the marriage not being valid, only that she trusted and loved someone so completely that she never thought they would be deceitful to her.

The court rendered judgment finding that the two were never validly married but that Barbara was in good faith until Roger filed his answer to her petition for divorce and was, therefore, "entitled to the civil effects of the marriage as a putative spouse." Roger appeals.

GOOD FAITH

Roger's first two assignments of error address the existence of good faith on the part of Barbara and the date on which her good faith, if any, ended.

"Good faith" is defined as an honest and reasonable belief that the marriage was valid and that no legal impediment to it existed. Saacks v. Saacks, 96-736 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/28/97), 688 So.2d 673. "Good faith" consists of being ignorant of the cause which prevents the formation of the marriage, or being ignorant of the defects in the celebration which caused the nullity. Saacks v. Saacks, supra; Rebouche v. Anderson,

505 So.2d 808 (La.App. 2 Cir.1987),

writ denied,

507 So.2d 228 (La.1987). The question of whether a party is in good faith is subjective, and depends on all the circumstances present in a given case. Saacks v. Saacks, supra; In Re Succession of Gordon, 461 So.2d 357 (La.App. 2 Cir.1984),

writ denied,

464 So.2d 319 (La.1985). Although the good faith analysis test incorporates the objective elements of reasonableness, the inquiry is essentially a subjective one. Saacks v. Saacks, supra; Rebouche v. Anderson, supra.

Alfonso v. Alfonso, 99-261, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/27/99); 739 So.2d 946, 948-49.

Roger testified that because they never found a justice of the peace and never went through a marriage ceremony, Barbara had to know that they were not married. Barbara testified that she thought they were married when they signed the license and saw the man she thought was a justice of the peace. Roger further argues that any good faith belief Barbara had in the validity of the marriage ended when he told her they were not really married shortly before their first child was born. He testified that he told her because he thought they should get married to legitimate the child, but that she did not want to hear it. Barbara testified that the validity of the marriage was never brought into question until Roger filed his answer to the petition.

The determination of whether good faith is present is a factual question and the finding of the trial judge is entitled to great weight on appeal. That factual determination will not be overturned unless it is shown to be clearly wrong. Any doubt as to the existence of good faith is to be resolved in favor of a finding of good faith.

Id. at p. 5; 739 So.2d at 949.

In this case, the trial court apparently based its determination on a credibility evaluation, accepting Barbara's testimony over that of Roger.

When findings are based on determinations regarding the credibility of witnesses, the manifest error—clearly wrong standard demands great deference to the trier of fact's findings; for only the factfinder can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said. Where documents or objective evidence so contradict the witness's story, or

...