HARRIET LAYNE GAMBEL v. GARY GAMBEL (2025)

Harriet Layne Gambel and Gary J. Gambel were married on June 25, 1988. On May 1, 2023, Ms. Gambel filed a petition for divorce pursuant to La. C.C. art. 102 ¹ and for a community property partition.² In her petition, Ms. Gambel asked for interim and final spousal support. On August 24, 2023, Ms. Gambel filed a motion to compel discovery. A hearing on the motion to compel was set for January 22, 2024. A hearing on interim spousal support and Ms. Gambel's motion to compel discovery response was held on January 22, 2024, and the trial court set the motion for review and allowed thirty days for Mr. Gambel to provide the information requested.³ On February 27, 2024, Ms. Gambel filed a motion for contempt and discovery sanctions, maintaining that Mr. Gambel failed to provide all of the documents he was ordered to provide. The trial court thereafter rendered judgment on March 15, 2024, ordering Mr. Gambel to pay Ms. Gambel $8,000.00 per month in interim spousal support. On March 28, 2024, Ms. Gambel filed a motion for new trial on interim spousal support.

The judgment of divorce was signed on April 18, 2024. The trial court denied Ms. Gambel's motion for new trial on April 29, 2024. The trial court granted Ms. Gambel's rule for contempt on May 15, 2024 and ordered Mr. Gambel to pay $2,500.00 in attorney fees to Ms. Gambel's attorney. Ms. Gambel appealed the judgment awarding spousal support and the denial of her motion for new trial.

On appeal, Ms. Gambel makes the following assignments of error.

1. The trial court erred in awarding only $8,000[.00] per month in interim spousal support, despite uncontroverted expert testimony establishing Appellee's demonstrated monthly need at $ll,331[.00] and Appellant's clear ability to pay.

2. The trial court erred in disregarding the unchallenged expert testimony of Appellant's witnesses, and instead arbitrarily selected a spousal support amount midway between the parties’ proposals, contrary to Louisiana law governing the weight of expert testimony.

3. The trial court erred in considering Appellant's potential future receipt of community property as a factor in determining interim spousal support, conflating interim support with property division in contravention of Louisiana law.

4. The trial court erred in denying Appellant's motion for a new trial despite recognizing significant discovery violations by Appellee, which undermined the accuracy and completeness of the financial evidence used to calculate spousal support.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER THREE

In assignment of error number three, Ms. Gambel maintains that the trial court erred in considering her potential future receipt of community property as a factor in determining interim spousal support.

The trial court indicated it had no evidence of Ms. Gambel's interest in limited liability companies that may be community assets. We find no indication that the trial court took any of these entities into account in setting the interim spousal support award. The trial court did note that Mr. Gambel had obtained three separate lines of credit to maintain the parties’ lifestyle. After review, we find that this assignment of error has no merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER TWO

In assignment of error number two, Ms. Gambel maintains that the trial court erred in disregarding unchallenged expert testimony and instead chose a spousal support amount that was midway between the parties’ proposals, contrary to Louisiana law governing the weight of expert testimony.

A trial court may accept or reject in whole or in part the opinion expressed by an expert. The effect and weight to be given expert testimony is within the broad discretion of the trial judge. Rao v. Rao, 2005-0059 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/4/05), 927 So.2d 356, 365, writ denied, 2005-2453 (La. 3/24/06), 925 So.2d 1232. The trier of fact may accept or reject any expert's view, even to the point of substituting its own common sense and judgment for that of an expert witness where, in the trier of fact's opinion, such substitution appears warranted by the evidence as a whole. Cotton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010-1609 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/6/11), 65 So.3d 213, 219, writ denied 2011-1084 (La. 9/2/11), 68 So.3d 522.

Ms. Gambel offered the expert testimony of Marc Derouen, a CPA and forensic accountant, and Kimberly Peters, a CPA and forensic accountant. Mr. Derouen testified that there was some speculation and supposition on his part. Ms. Peters testified that she made assumptions regarding Ms. Gambel's business expenses based on discussions with Ms. Gambel, and that she had not seen the receipts for cash payments Ms. Gambel made to the handyman and the maid, nor had she seen receipts for the cash payments Ms. Gambel received for the rental property.

After review, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its determination of the effect and weight given to the expert testimony. See Rao, 927 So.2d at 365. This assignment of error has no merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE

In assignment of error number one, Ms. Gambel maintains that the trial court erred in awarding her $8,000.00 per month in interim spousal support. She argues that she proved her need of $11,331.00 per month and that she proved Mr. Gambel's ability to pay.

The trial court is vested with much discretion in determining whether to make an award of interim spousal support, and such determination will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion. Lambert v. Lambert, 2006-2399 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/07), 960 So.2d 921, 928; Martello v. Martello, 2006-0594 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/07), 960 So.2d 186, 192. Although the trial court is vested with much discretion in determining whether to award interim spousal support, factual findings underlying a trial court's decision are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review. Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 2020-0171 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/6/20), 315 So.3d 913, 917. The law provides that a claimant spouse should not be expected, during the period for which interim spousal support is intended, to experience dramatic changes in her standard of living experienced during the marriage. Ashley v. Ashley, 54,133 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/09/22), 335 So.3d 468, 479. Interim spousal support is designed to assist the claimant spouse in sustaining the same style or standard of living that he or she enjoyed while residing with the other spouse. Lambert, 960 So.2d at 928.

Louisiana Civil Code article 113(A) provides:

Upon motion of a party, the court may award a party interim spousal support based on the needs of that party, the ability of the other party to pay, any interim or final child support obligation, and the standard of living of the parties during the marriage. An award of interim spousal support shall terminate one hundred eighty days from the rendition of a judgment of divorce, except that the award may extend beyond one hundred eighty days but only for good cause shown.

At the hearing, Ms. Gambel testified concerning her income and expenses. She introduced into evidence an income and expense statement,⁴ the curriculum vitae of her two expert witnesses, financial statements of Mr. Gambel from 2020 and 2021, income details of her dog breeding business, a pay stub from Mr. Gambel dated December 29, 2023, and a listing of post-termination activity in a Chase bank account from May 2, 2023 to December 31, 2023. Mr. Gambel testified and entered into evidence his affidavit of monthly income and expenses.

Ms. Gambel listed $1,000.00 monthly income from rent, and $1,598.00 monthly net profit from her dog breeding business. She listed monthly expenses of:

first mortgage - $959.00

second mortgage - $344.00

homeowner's insurance - $333.00

umbrella insurance - $203.00

real estate taxes - $194.00

security system - $31.00

pest control - $23.00

lawn service - $400.00

handyman/helper - $400.00

repairs/maintenance - $1,290.00

maid service - $650.00

home items - $37.00

food and household supplies - $1,352.00

clothing - $419.00

car note/lease - $1,005.00

gas and oil - $543.00

repairs/maintenance - $182.00

insurance - $167.00

prescriptions - $372.00

dental expenses - $484.00

vision expenses - $42.00

counseling/therapy - $200.00

medical expenses - $104.00

water/garbage - $142.00

electricity - $498.00

natural gas/propane - $222.00

cable/satellite TV - $63.00

cellphone - $257.00

computer - $12.00

personal and grooming - $146.00

credit card interest/fees - $336.00

gifts/birthday/holiday expenses - $160.00

reading material - $84.00

entertainment - $273.00

dining out - $400.00

charitable contributions - $19.00

personal tax prep - $83.00

vacations - $162.00

personal pet expenses - $888.00

Ms. Gambel totaled her monthly expenses at $13,482.00, minus net monthly income of $2,150.00, resulting in monthly expenses of $ll,331.00.⁵ Ms. Gambel entered into evidence a historical income analysis of the parties’ income, prepared by Mr. Derouen, using the previous four years of the parties’ income tax returns and a draft tax return for Mr. Gambel for 2023. This analysis showed the parties had income of $630,791.00 in 2019, $667,654.00 in 2020, $342,007.00 in 2021, and $338,346.00 in 2022.⁶ The report showed that Mr. Gambel had an estimated income of $376,142.00 in 2023.

Mr. Gambel's affidavit of monthly income and expenses listed a monthly draw from his law firm (Murphy, Rogers, Sloss, Gambel and Thompkins), of $10,500.00, and installment payments from the sale of First Oil, Inc. of $1,248.00, with deductions leaving a net monthly income of $9,466.55. He listed expenses of:

property taxes - $59.10

groceries and dining out - $2,400.00

electricity - $375.00

phone and computer - $240.00

cable and internet - $100.00

garbage - $45.00

gas and oil - $1,680.00

repairs and maintenance - $422.00

automobile insurance - $160.22

Mardi Gras dues - $1,818.03

hunting club dues - $1,000.00

Mardi Gras entertaining - $233.75

country club dues - $184.00

supplies - $200.00

umbrella insurance - $201.50

homeowner's insurance - $275.00

clothing/uniforms - $420.00

cleaning/laundry - $100.00

medical/dental - $147.00

grooming - $50.00

fitness club membership - $76.00

gifts - $160.00

maid service - $35.00

home maintenance - $175.00

vacations - $450.00

tax preparation - $85.00

pet expenses - $20.00

first line of credit at Horizon Bank - $2,129.00

second line of credit at Horizon Bank - $1,446.00

third line of credit at Horizon Bank - $1,409.00

fees and expenses - $2,800.00

Mr. Gambel's total monthly expenditures were listed at $18,885.60.

Mr. Gambel testified that he was an employee at the law firm and received a paycheck. He also testified that he received a bonus of $200,000.00 in early 2023 and that he gave Ms. Gambel a portion of the bonus. He testified that he had no control over the bonus amounts. Mr. Gambel testified that he used the bonus to pay down lines of credit, to pay taxes, and to pay other outstanding obligations that the couple had. He also testified to irregular income that he received from companies where he was a part owner. Regarding Ms. Gambel's expenses, he testified that she claimed expenses that were far higher than they were during the marriage. Mr. Gambel testified they only had a maid around every other week during the marriage and they mowed their own lawn. He also testified that he owned two rental properties that were not currently rented, but that Ms. Gambel was the one who collected rent on them in the past. Mr. Gambel testified that some of his expenses, including the expenses for Mardi Gras, dining out, and gas and oil, were related to his business interests.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found that “the expenses listed [by both parties] is reflective of their standard of living during the marriage, which, according to [Mr.] Gambel was over and above their ability to consistently pay for those needs – thus his obtaining three separate lines of credit to maintain their lifestyle.” Thus, after review, we cannot say that the trial court committed manifest error in awarding Ms. Gambel $8,000.00 per month in interim spousal support. This assignment of error has no merit.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER FOUR

In assignment of error number four, Ms. Gambel claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a new trial despite recognizing significant discovery violations by Mr. Gambel, which undermined the accuracy and completeness of the financial information used to calculate spousal support.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1972 provides:

A new trial shall be granted, upon contradictory motion of any party, in the following cases:

(1) When the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence.

(2) When the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the cause, which he could not, with due diligence, have obtained before or during the trial.

(3) When the jury was bribed or has behaved improperly so that impartial justice has not been done.

A new trial may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor, except as otherwise provided by law. La. C.C.P. art. 1973. The applicable standard of review of a judgment on a motion for new trial is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Guillory v. Lee, 2009-0075 (La. 6/26/09), 16 So.3d 1104, 1131; Landry v. Thomas, 2012-1974 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/31/13), 2013 WL 2395151/4, (unpublished) writ denied, 2013-1552 (La. 7/10/13), 118 So.3d 1099.

While Ms. Gambel maintains that the trial court should have granted her motion for new trial due to discovery violations which undermined the completeness of the financial information used to determine interim spousal support, we note that Ms. Gambel could have asked the trial court to make an interim spousal support award without prejudice. Notably, the parties previously agreed that Mr. Gambel would deposit his monthly law firm paycheck into an account for Ms. Gambel's use while waiting for a determination of interim spousal support by the trial court. Furthermore, she had the revenues from her dog breeding business and a rental property during this time period.

After review, we find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in the denial of the motion for new trial. This assignment of error has no merit.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgments dated March 15, 2024 and April 29, 2024 are affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-appellant, Harriet Layne Gambel.

AFFIRMED.

I agree in part and dissent in part. While I agree with the majority's analysis of the evidence before us, I believe the motion to compel should have been resolved prior to a ruling on the motion for new trial. The trial court ultimately found Mr. Gambel in contempt for his failure to comply with its order concerning production of discovery and ordered Mr. Gambel to pay attorney fees and costs in connection with Ms. Gambel's filing of the rule. Without this additional information, our evidentiary review becomes less certain.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Louisiana Civil Code article 102 provides, in pertinent part, that:[A] divorce shall be granted upon motion of a spouse when either spouse has filed a petition for divorce and upon proof that the requisite period of time, in accordance with Article 103.1, has elapsed from the service of the petition, or from the execution of written waiver of the service, and that the spouses have lived separate and apart continuously for at least the requisite period of time, in accordance with Article 103.1, prior to the filing of the rule to show cause. Boudreaux v. Boudreaux, 2021-1050 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/3/22) 2022 WL 1830833, *1, n. 1 (unpublished).Louisiana Civil Code article 103(1) provides that a divorce shall be granted on the petition of a spouse upon proof that the spouses have been living separate and apart continuously for the requisite period of time, in accordance with Article 103.1, or more on the date the petition is filed. Boudreaux, 2022 WL 1830833, *3, n. 2. La. C.C. art. 103.1(1) provides, in accordance with La. C.C. arts. 102 and 103, that the requisite period of time shall be one hundred and eighty days where there are no minor children of the marriage.

2.   The Gambels’ three children were of the age of majority.

3.   The parties stipulated that interim spousal support would run from the date Ms. Gambel filed the request for interim spousal support to the date of the hearing, plus six months, regardless of the date of the divorce. Ms. Gamble would be maintained on Mr. Gambel's health insurance policy until the date of the divorce.

4.   Ms. Gambel's income and expense statement is not signed and is not an affidavit.

5.   This amount appears to be $11,332.00 rather than $11,331.00.

6.   The income tax returns are not in the record.

GREENE, J.

Miller, J. agrees in part and dissents in part with reasons.