JO ELLEN COHEN v. MICHAEL COHEN (2025)

Following their divorce in 1994, Dr. Michael Cohen and Jo Ellen Cohen entered into a Consent Judgment for Partition of Community Property. In that judgment, Dr. Cohen agreed to maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy, and to name his former spouse, Jo Ellen Cohen, and their children, Zachary and Joshua Cohen, as irrevocable beneficiaries. In 2019, Dr. Cohen filed a motion to terminate, or in the alternative, to reduce the amount of the death benefit he must maintain on his life insurance policy. In response, Ms. Cohen, later joined by the parties’ sons, filed a rule for contempt and damages.

On June 27, 2024, the trial court signed a written judgment which denied Dr. Cohen's motion. The trial court ordered Dr. Cohen to: (1) maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy; (2) name Ms. Cohen as an irrevocable beneficiary to half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00; and (3) name Zachary and Joshua Cohen as irrevocable beneficiaries to the other half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00. As an alternative to complying with its orders for maintaining life insurance coverage, the trial court ordered Dr. Cohen to provide assets in an equivalent amount respectively to Ms. Cohen and to Zachary and Joshua Cohen. The court also granted the rule for contempt and damages and awarded attorney's fees and court costs to Ms. Cohen.

Dr. Cohen now appeals the trial court's June 27, 2024 judgment. Upon review, for the reasons that follow, we affirm the denial of the motion to terminate, or in the alternative, to reduce the amount of the death benefit on Dr. Cohen's life insurance policy. We affirm the court's judgment ordering Dr. Cohen: (1) to maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy; (2) to name Ms. Cohen as an irrevocable beneficiary to one-half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00; and (3) to name Zachary and Joshua Cohen as irrevocable beneficiaries to the other one-half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00. However, we vacate the alternate finding of the court requiring Dr. Cohen to provide assets in an equivalent respectively to Ms. Cohen and to Zachary and Joshua Cohen, should he not maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy. We also affirm the judgment granting the rule for contempt and damages and awarding attorney's fees to Ms. Cohen.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Dr. Cohen and Ms. Cohen married on June 13, 1976. During their marriage, they adopted two children, Zachary and Joshua Cohen. On April 27, 1992, Ms. Cohen filed a petition for divorce, and on January 10, 1994, the trial court granted the divorce. On the same date, the parties signed two judgments, a “Consent Judgment of Partition of Community Property” (“Partition Judgment”) and a “Judgment of Child Custody, Spousal Support and Child Support” (“Support Judgment”).¹

According to Dr. Cohen, during the parties’ marriage, in the mid-1980's, he took out a universal life policy with Lamar Life Insurance Company. Upon their divorce, Dr. Cohen and Ms. Cohen agreed that Dr. Cohen would maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on this life insurance policy and name Ms. Cohen and their children as beneficiaries. The Partition Judgment specifically provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael B. Cohen will receive his one-half of the IRAs’, that are owned by the parties; he shall receive approximately $15,000 for his one-half interest in the IRA, the cash surrender values in the amount of $15,000 of the life insurance policies that are owned by him, and any and all community interest in his medical practice, including the Lamar Life No. _______ insurance plan. Jo Ellen Cohen waives any ownership interest in the above referenced assets, including the Lamar Life insurance policy which provides for his retirement.

The Mutual of New York life insurance policy held by the parties for Jo Ellen Cohen and presently maintained for the children of the marriage with a monthly premium of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) month [sic] will be allowed to lapse.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Michael B. Cohen will maintain and will not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his insurance policy. Michael B. Cohen will irrevocably name the plaintiff, Jo Ellen Cohen as sole beneficiary to one-half of the death benefit and to irrevocably name the children as the only beneficiaries to the other one-half of the death benefit. Jo Ellen Cohen will remain as beneficiary to one-half of the death benefit, if she remarries, only if she executes a Prenuptial Agreement or a Declaration of Separateness declaring the funds from the insurance policy to be her separate property.

At some point in time prior to November 15, 1996, Dr. Cohen changed the universal life policy to a term policy. Thereafter, on November 15, 1996, Dr. Cohen filed a motion to clarify the Partition Judgment, wherein he argued that the language addressing the $1.3 million dollar death benefit was unclear and ambiguous. He asserted that the Partition Judgment failed to clarify how long he must maintain the term policy. He also argued that it did not represent the parties’ true intent—that the death benefit proceeds would be used to financially support the children should Dr. Cohen die while the children were still in need of such support. The record does not reflect that this motion was ever ruled upon.

In 2003, because his previous policy lapsed, Dr. Cohen obtained a term policy with Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company with a $1 million dollar death benefit. He testified that because of cardiac issues, he could not obtain a policy with a $1.3 million dollar death benefit. In 2019, he adjusted the percentage of Ms. Cohen's death benefit from 50% to 65% to ensure she would still receive $650,000.00 upon his death.

On January 29, 2019, Dr. Cohen filed a motion to terminate, or in the alternative, to reduce the amount of the death benefit he is obligated to maintain on his life insurance policy. He argued that various changes in circumstances justified the termination of his obligation, including the deterioration of his health, which resulted in his inability to work as an obstetrician-gynecologist and reduced his income. He also claimed that the life insurance premium was increasing from $2,500.00 per year to approximately $80,000.00 per year. Further, he claimed his obligation to maintain the death benefit on his life insurance policy was considered a support obligation that is no longer payable due to his inability to work and because his children are now adults and are no longer in need of support.

Ms. Cohen filed a response to Dr. Cohen's motion, a rule for contempt, and a rule to show cause. Ms. Cohen asserted that Dr. Cohen's obligation to maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy was part of the partition of their community property, not a support obligation. In exchange for his obligation, Ms. Cohen waived a number of interests she had in the parties’ community property, including all of her interest in Dr. Cohen's medical practice. Further, she argued that because Dr. Cohen failed to maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy as was ordered in the Partition Judgment, he should be found in contempt of court. She sought both damages and attorney's fees.

An evidentiary hearing on these matters took place on November 26, 2019. On February 3, 2020, the trial court signed a written judgment denying Dr. Cohen's motion to terminate or reduce the amount of the death benefit on his life insurance policy. The trial court ordered that he maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit and name Ms. Cohen and their children as irrevocable beneficiaries. In the alterative, the court ordered that Dr. Cohen shall provide assets of an equivalent value respectively to Ms. Cohen and to Zachary and Joshua Cohen. The court granted Ms. Cohen's motion for contempt and for damages and awarded her attorney's fees and court costs.

Dr. Cohen appealed the February 3, 2020 judgment; however, this Court remanded the matter to the trial court after finding that the judgment was not a valid, final appealable judgment since it did not include the specific amount of monetary damages awarded. On February 1, 2021, the trial court signed an amended judgment awarding Ms. Cohen $7,446.20 in attorney's fees, $195.00 in court costs, and $3.60 in mailing costs.

Dr. Cohen again filed a suspensive appeal, and this Court consolidated the two appeals. This Court found that Zachary and Joshua Cohen were parties needed for adjudication due to their interests as irrevocable beneficiaries to Dr. Cohen's life insurance policy, as well as their interests in the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, this Court vacated the trial court's February 1, 2021 judgment and remanded the matter for further proceedings. Cohen v. Cohen, 20-352 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/13/21), 329 So.3d 1057.

On November 9, 2021, Zachary and Joshua Cohen filed a Petition for Intervention, seeking to join Ms. Cohen in her rule for contempt against Dr. Cohen.

The matter was scheduled for an evidentiary hearing on April 8, 2024. The parties stipulated that Zachary and Joshua Cohen have no independent and/or personal knowledge of any facts relevant to these proceedings. The parties also stipulated that the matter should be decided based on the evidence previously presented to the trial court on November 26, 2019.

At the November 26, 2019 hearing, Dr. Cohen testified that he agreed to maintain the death benefit on his life insurance policy as a way to provide financial support for his minor children. This was evident in his last will and testament that named the “Michael Cohen Testamentary Trust” as the beneficiary. The trust was set up to distribute the life insurance proceeds and would terminate when the children were 26. He testified that this was a support obligation, but acknowledged that it was not discussed in the Support Judgment. Nevertheless, he testified that the Support Judgment states that his support obligations are premised on his ability to work. He stated that Ms. Cohen waived her interest in his medical practice in exchange for the house and other assets, including the death benefit of the life insurance policy.

Dr. Cohen testified that his health has deteriorated. He had four back surgeries, a neck fusion surgery, and a lumbar fusion surgery. He was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis in 2015 and has atrial fibrillation. Because of these health issues and the physical limitations associated with these issues, he can no longer practice as an OB-GYN and is on an unpaid extended medical leave of absence.² His current sources of income are social security, a pension from a previous employer, and retirement and savings. He stated that his life insurance premium is $2,540.00 annually, but is set to increase to $32,000.00 annually in two years.³ He stated that he does not have the financial wherewithal to pay the premium.

Ms. Cohen testified that she believed the life insurance policy was an investment vehicle; she never considered the life insurance to be a form of child support. She stated that when partitioning the community property, she gave up her interest in Dr. Cohen's medical practice for the life insurance proceeds. She stated that the term “and will not cancel” was added to the Partition Judgment after concerns were raised by her father that she was giving up money by relinquishing an interest in Dr. Cohen's medical practice. Ms. Cohen testified that she was never asked by Dr. Cohen if he could change the life insurance policy. She admitted that should she die before Dr. Cohen, she would not receive any death benefit.

On June 27, 2024, the trial court signed a judgment: (1) denying Dr. Cohen's motion to terminate, or in the alternative, reduce the amount of the death benefit Dr. Cohen is obliged to maintain on his life insurance policy; (2) ordering Dr. Cohen to maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy, to name Ms. Cohen as irrevocable beneficiary to half of the benefit in the amount of $650,000.00, and to name Zachary and Joshua Cohen as irrevocable beneficiaries to the other half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00, to be paid upon Dr. Cohen's death; (3) ordering in the alternative that if Dr. Cohen does not maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy, then he shall provide assets in an equivalent amount respectively to Ms. Cohen and the children; (4) granting the rule for contempt and damages; (5) ordering the contempt and damages to be in the amount of attorney's fees and court costs incurred by Ms. Cohen at the November 26, 2019 hearing; and (6) ordering Dr. Cohen to pay $7,446.20 in attorney's fees, $195.00 in court costs, and $3.60 in mailing costs.

This appeal followed. On appeal, Dr. Cohen argues the trial court erred in denying his motion to terminate or reduce the amount of the death benefit on his life insurance policy, and by granting the rule for contempt and damages.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Motion to terminate or to reduce the amount of the death benefit

Dr. Cohen argues on appeal that the provision of the Partition Judgment that requires him to maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy is a support obligation, and the support obligation is premised on his ability to work. He argues that he presented unrefuted evidence he can no longer work due to his poor health. He also presented unrefuted evidence that the cost to maintain his life insurance is substantially increasing.

A consent judgment is a bilateral contract in which parties adjust their differences by mutual consent, thereby putting an end to a lawsuit with each party balancing hope of gain against fear of loss. La. C.C. art. 3071; Lawrence v. Ashton Plantation Home Owners Ass'n, Inc., 22-122 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/28/22), 344 So.3d 232, 239, writ denied, 22-1157 (La. 11/1/22), 349 So.3d 5. It has attributes both of contracts and of a judicial decree. D'Amico v. Burnthorne, 23-80 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/6/23), 378 So.3d 174, 183, writ denied, 24-34 (La. 2/27/24), 379 So.3d 1268. Consent judgments are governed by the same rules of construction that apply to contracts. Randazza v. Giacona, 20-439 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/24/21), 316 So.3d 564, 569; Rousset v. Rousset, 14-663 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/15/15), 170 So.3d 253, 256.

A compromise agreement which forms the basis for a consent judgment gets its binding force and effect from the consent of the parties. Rousset, supra. The interpretation of the consent judgment is the determination of the common intent of the parties. La. C.C. art. 2045. The meaning and intent of the parties is ordinarily determined from the four corners of the instrument. Millet v. Millet, 04-406 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/26/04), 888 So.2d 291, 293. Each provision in the consent judgment is interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the consent judgment as a whole. Bacchus v. Bacchus, 22-170 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/4/22), 340 So.3d 148, 151. When the words of a contract are clear and explicit and lead to no absurd consequences, the intent of the parties is to be determined by the words of the contract. La. C.C. art. 2046; Jones v. City of New Orleans, 20-0247 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/14/21), 315 So.3d 963, 967.

In the present case, on January 10, 1994, the parties signed two separate judgments: the Partition Judgement and the Support Judgment. The Partition Judgment partitioned the family home, household furnishings, vehicles, mutual funds and IRAs, life insurance, and bonds. The language of the Partition Judgment clearly states that Dr. Cohen “will maintain and will not cancel” the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his insurance policy and will irrevocably name Ms. Cohen as beneficiary to half of the death benefit and irrevocably name Zachary and Joshua Cohen as beneficiaries to the other half of the death benefit. We find no ambiguity in this decree.

Dr. Cohen argues this was a support obligation. He highlights that the Partition Judgment addressed both support obligations and the partition of property. The Partition Judgment does discuss alimony. Therein, Dr. Cohen was ordered to convey his one-half interest in the home and pay any and all of the indebtedness thereon, approximately $144,000.00, as alimony to Ms. Cohen. Dr. Cohen would then be entitled to claim a tax deduction for the payment of alimony. Ms. Cohen waived any right to future alimony, except what was granted in the Partition Judgment and the Support Judgment. Unlike this provision, however, the Partition Judgment does not qualify the death benefit as any type of support obligation or alimony. Nor does the Partition Judgment state that Dr. Cohen's obligation to maintain the death benefit is premised on his ability to work.

Based on the clear wording in the Partition Judgment, we do not find Dr. Cohen's obligation to maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy to be a support obligation. It is thus not subject to modification due to his change in circumstances. We conclude that Dr. Cohen is bound by the terms of the Partition Judgment he consented to and signed with his counsel at the time. Therefore, we find no error in the trial court's denial of Dr. Cohen's motion to terminate or reduce the amount of the death benefit on his life insurance policy and its finding that Dr. Cohen must maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit, naming Ms. Cohen as irrevocable beneficiary to one-half thereof and Zachary and Joshua Cohen as irrevocable beneficiaries to the other one-half thereof.⁴

Nevertheless, we conclude the trial court erred in finding that as an alternative to maintaining the $1.3 million dollar death benefit, Dr. Cohen shall provide assets in the equivalent respectively to Ms. Cohen and to Zachary and Joshua Cohen. No such requirement is set forth in the Partition Judgment. This ruling goes beyond the terms of the Partition Judgment.⁵ Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's ruling ordering Dr. Cohen to provide assets in the equivalent to Ms. Cohen and the children.⁶

Rule for Contempt

Dr. Cohen also argues that the trial court erred in finding him in contempt of court since he did not knowingly and purposefully disobey the Partition Judgment. He asserts that since 2003, he has maintained a life insurance policy with a $1 million dollar death benefit. In 2019, he adjusted the percentage of the death benefit so that Ms. Cohen would receive $650,000.00, the same amount she would receive if he had a $1.3 million dollar death benefit. He argues that even if he did violate the terms of the Partition Judgment, his violation was justified given his significant change in circumstances related to his health and ability to work. He argues it is impossible for him to maintain the policy.

A contempt of court is any act or omission tending to obstruct or interfere with the orderly administration of justice, or to impair the dignity of the court or respect for its authority. La. C.C.P. art. 221. Constructive contempt is “any contempt other than a direct one,” and delineates a number of acts that constitute a constructive contempt, including the following: “wilful [sic] disobedience of any lawful judgment, order, mandate, writ, or process of the court.” La. C.C.P. art. 224. To find a person guilty of constructive contempt, it is necessary to find that he violated the order of the court intentionally, knowingly, and purposefully without justifiable excuse. D'Amico, 378 So.3d at 184; Barrett v. Barrett, 20-266 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/24/21), 314 So.3d 1023, 1037; Short v. Short, 12-312 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/13/12), 105 So.3d 892, 896.

The trial court is vested with great discretion in determining whether circumstances warrant holding a party in contempt of court. The trial court's decision will only be reversed when the appellate court can discern an abuse of that discretion. Pierre v. Pierre, 23-574 (La. App. 5 Cir. 9/16/24), 397 So.3d 1226, 1232-33, writ denied, 24-1275 (La. 1/14/25), 398 So.3d 1168.

In the present case, Dr. Cohen testified that the policy in place at the time the parties signed the Partition Judgment was a universal life policy with Lamar Life Insurance Company. As of November 15, 1996, he changed his universal policy to a term policy. Dr. Cohen testified that he did inform Ms. Cohen of the change. Ms. Cohen did not consent to the change, and he did not get the court's permission. According to Dr. Cohen, he made the change in 1996 because Lamar “went out of business.”⁷ He also testified that he was advised by his insurance agent at the time that Lamar had a drop in ratings and was going to be bought by Conseco. The agent recommended that he get a different insurance policy. He acknowledged he followed his agent's advice and not the order of the court.

In 2003, Dr. Cohen testified that he wrote a letter to Ms. Cohen to inform her that the “life insurance policy from the divorce” lapsed and was too expensive to continue in the universal life format. He was working on getting a term policy. Because those too were expensive, he wished to negotiate dropping the life insurance altogether. Ms. Cohen testified that she was not familiar with this letter. Dr. Cohen did obtain a new term policy with Transamerica in 2003. He was 51 years old at the time, and he could not get more than a $1 million dollar death benefit. He understood that as a term policy, it would expire. On June 14, 2019, he updated his Transamerica policy to give Ms. Cohen 65% of the $1 million dollar death benefit.

By Dr. Cohen's own admission, he is not fulfilling his obligation under the terms of Partition Judgment. Since as early as 1996, he changed his policy from a universal life policy to a term policy. In 2003, he obtained the Transamerica term policy with a $1 million dollar death benefit. He did not receive approval or consent to make these changes. While Ms. Cohen would currently still obtain $650,000.00 upon Dr. Cohen's death, his children would not receive their equal share. Thus, upon review, we find Ms. Cohen has met her burden of proving that Dr. Cohen knowingly, intentionally, and purposefully failed to maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and was not manifestly erroneous in granting the rule for contempt.

The power to punish for contempt of court is limited by law. La. Const. Art. V, § 2. Under La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g), “[t]he court may award attorney fees to the prevailing party in a contempt of court proceeding provided for in this Section.” The term “prevailing party” means a party who succeeds in establishing that contempt of court has occurred. Luv N’ Care, Ltd. v. Jackel International Limited, 19-749 (La. 1/29/20), 347 So.3d 572, 578. Under La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g), the legislature chose to authorize awards of attorney's fees under this statute only to a party who successfully prosecutes a motion for contempt. Id. at 578-79.

Accordingly, pursuant to La. R.S. 13:4611(1)(g), we find no error in the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Ms. Cohen, the prevailing party in the contempt proceeding.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court denying Dr. Cohen's motion to terminate, or in the alternative, to reduce the amount of the death benefit on his life insurance policy. We affirm the trial court's judgment ordering Dr. Cohen to maintain and not cancel the $1.3 million dollar death benefit, to name Ms. Cohen as an irrevocable beneficiary to half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00, and to name Zachary and Joshua Cohen as irrevocable beneficiaries to the other half of the death benefit in the amount of $650,000.00. However, we vacate the alternate finding of the trial court requiring Dr. Cohen to provide assets in an equivalent respectively to Ms. Cohen, and to Zachary and Joshua Cohen, should he not maintain the $1.3 million dollar death benefit on his life insurance policy. Finally, we affirm the judgment granting the rule for contempt and damages and awarding attorney's fees to Ms. Cohen.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART

FIFTH CIRCUIT

101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)

POST OFFICE BOX 489

GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054

www.fifthcircuit.org

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE

FREDERICKA H. WICKER

JUDE G. GRAVOIS

MARC E. JOHNSON

STEPHEN J. WINDHORST

JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.

SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL

TIMOTHY S. MARCEL

JUDGES

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK

LINDA M. WISEMAN FIRST DEPUTY CLERK

MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF

(504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY

I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE OPINION IN THE BELOW-NUMBERED MATTER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 2-16.4 AND 2-16.5 THIS DAY MAY 14, 2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, CLERK OF COURT, COUNSEL OF RECORD AND ALL PARTIES NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

24-CA-584

CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT

E-NOTIFIED

24TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT (CLERK)

HONORABLE JUNE B. DARENSBURG (DISTRICT JUDGE)

YVETTE A. D'AUNOY (APPELLEE)

JOHN G. JORDAN (APPELLANT)

MAILED

DANIEL H. EDWARDS (APPELLANT)

ATTORNEY AT LAW

111 NORTH OAK STREET

HAMMOND, LA 70401

MARIANNE GARVEY (APPELLEE)

ATTORNEY AT LAW

909 POYDRAS STREET

SUITE 1400

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70112

FOOTNOTES

1.   At the time the parties divorced in 1994, Zachary was approximately 9 years old and Joshua was approximately 13 years old.

2.   Dr. Cohen provided letters from his medical providers who discussed his health issues, including his left arm weakness and leg and back pain, and his inability to practice as an OB-GYN as a result thereof.

3.   Andrew Leyens testified as an expert in the field of life insurance. He is a financial wealth management adviser and a life insurance agent. He testified that Dr. Cohen's premium for his current policy with Transamerica will be changing from $2,540.00 a year to anywhere from $33,460.00 to $72,220.00 per year, with an increase each year after the first year. If Dr. Cohen exercises the option of conversion of his current policy, he could start off paying around $31,000.00 per year. Mr. Leyens also investigated Dr. Cohen's potential to underwrite with a new insurance company. After a preliminary review, many of companies Mr. Leyens considered indicated that they could not offer coverage. Protective Life Insurance gave a tentative offer of either $44,558.00 per year or $59,695.00 per year. Ultimately, Mr. Leyens opined that Dr. Cohen would be unable to qualify for coverage that would be at an acceptable cost benefit range.

4.   From the evidence presented, we are cognizant of the fact that Dr. Cohen's $1.3 million dollar life insurance policy no longer exists. However, based on the clear provisions of the Partition Judgment and the trial court's finding of contempt, Dr. Cohen will have to determine how he will comply with the provisions of the Partition Judgment going forward.

5.   Additionally, a final judgment may not be amended to change its substance. La. C.C.P. art. 1951. Any ruling by the trial court that terminates or reduces the death benefit or, as here, adds an alternative, affects the substance of the Partition Judgment.

6.   Obviously, nothing prohibits the parties from reaching an agreement in accordance with the terms of the vacated alternative ruling, or anything else for that matter, to resolve their differences.

7.   An article from the Clarion Ledger of Jackson Mississippi, dated June 20, 1999, was submitted into evidence. The article stated in part that Lamar was taking a new name, Conseco, and all of its policies would remain in effect.

JUDE G. GRAVOIS JUDGE