GEORGE DEWITT LOCKHART v. RICKIE LYNN NORRED (2025)

This is an appeal from a judgment setting an award of interim spousal support. After review, we amend, and affirm as amended.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George Dewitt Lockhart and Rickie Lynn Norred were married in Livingston Parish on October 22, 2022.¹ Mr. Lockhart filed a petition for an Article 102 divorce on February 28, 2023.² Ms. Norred filed an answer and reconventional demand on April 25, 2023, seeking incidental relief, including interim spousal support. A judgment of divorce was granted on September 13, 2023. A hearing on the incidental relief was held on January 12, 2024. Mr. Lockhart did not appear at the hearing. His attorney waived his appearance, and stipulated that Mr. Lockhart had the ability to pay interim spousal support. Ms. Norred testified and introduced evidence at the hearing.

Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment, granting Ms. Norred's request for interim spousal support, and awarding her a lump sum of $20,000.00, minus $12,000.00 representing money previously given to Ms. Norred by Mr. Lockhart. Ms. Norred appealed the judgment.

On appeal Ms. Norred sets forth the following assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in its interpretation of “need” when awarding Ms. Norred's interim spousal support.

2. The trial court erred in considering other factors not allowed by La. Civil Code Art. 113 in determining the award of interim spousal support for Ms. Norred.

3. The trial court erred in reducing the parties’ monthly living expenses during the marriage despite Ms. Norred providing evidence to substantiate them and despite the lack of any objection from Mr. Lockhart regarding the amount of monthly living expenses presented by Ms. Norred.

4. The trial court erred in reducing its lump sum award of interim spousal support by amounts it arbitrarily determined were paid to Ms. Norred by Mr. Lockhart, although there was no testimony or other evidence to support those amounts.

5. The trial court erred by awarding too little in interim spousal support.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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. See Lambert v. Lambert, 2006-2399 (La. App. 1 Cir. 3/23/07), 960 So.2d 921, 928; see also 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. When the court of appeal finds that a reversible error of law or manifest error of material fact was made in the trial court, it is required, whenever possible, to redetermine the facts de novo from the entire record and render a judgment on the merits. Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 94-1252 (La. 2/20/95), 650 So.2d 742, 745.

DISCUSSION

Louisiana Civil Code article 113 provides:

A. 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.

B. An obligation to pay final periodic support shall not begin until an interim spousal support award has terminated.

In this case, Mr. Lockhart and Ms. Norred were in a romantic relationship for seven years, beginning at the end of 2015, during which time Mr. Lockhart was married to his previous wife. Mr. Lockhart was divorced shortly before his marriage to Ms. Norred. Ms. Norred was previously employed as a property manager for the state of Hawaii, but had not been employed since the end of 2015. Mr. Lockhart had taken care of Ms. Norred and Ms. Norred's daughter since her daughter was three months old. The parties’ marriage lasted for four months before Mr. Lockhart filed for divorce. During the marriage, Mr. Lockhart earned around $60,000.00 per month, and the parties lived a very comfortable lifestyle. They resided in a 6,000 square foot house that was purchased in both of their names in 2021 (prior to the marriage) that included a pool, a 2,600 square foot guest house, two garages, and a boat shed on the Diversion Canal on two lots, which together totaled between two and four acres (the Waterfront property). There was no mortgage on the Waterfront property. Mr. Lockhart and Ms. Norred went on several trips during the marriage, and enjoyed an elaborate Christmas together. Ms. Norred testified and provided documentary evidence regarding the expenses during the marriage, which included utilities, internet, gas, travel, and other items. She testified that she continued living in the house after the parties separated, but that many of the bills were past due and the electricity had been turned off. Mr. Lockhart's attorney agreed that Mr. Lockhart would pay the homeowner's insurance and the property taxes on the Waterfront property.

While Ms. Norred and her daughter lived in the Waterfront property main house, she allowed the father of her child (Kaiolohia Ogilvie), his wife, and their son to live rent-free in the guest house. Ms. Norred introduced an income and expense affidavit. She estimated that the cost of maintaining the property was $3,585.91 per month. When this monthly maintenance amount was questioned by the trial court, Ms. Norred explained that she calculated the cost of a new air conditioner unit (the home had five air conditioning units) and divided it by five, stating that a new air conditioner unit would cost $18,000.00. Ms. Norred listed the costs of her monthly housekeeping services as $3,223.00 per month.

Ms. Norred testified that Mr. Lockhart would regularly give her several thousand dollars in cash to go shopping. She stated that her Toyota Tundra Hybrid would soon be repossessed, as her monthly note of $878.99 was past due in the amount of $3,024.95. She testified that her oil and gas expenses were roughly $500.00 per month. Ms. Norred stated that the property's electric bill was approximately $2,137.00 per month. When questioned by the trial court, she admitted that the utility bill was closer to $1,200.00 to $1,300.00 per month. She testified that her cell phone bill was $364.06 per month. When questioned about this amount, she stated that Mr. Lockhart would add lines to the phone service on installment plans and she couldn't cancel them.

Ms. Norred testified that she calculated her monthly expenses by dividing the expenses by five, stating that the marriage was five months. The trial court asked why the costs had not been divided by twelve. On cross examination, Ms. Norred testified that the marriage lasted four months and nine days. Ms. Norred admitted that she had not employed a maid in almost a year.

Ms. Norred admitted that she had been to the casino since the separation, but stated that she gambled using “free play” money, and would sometimes win and sometimes lose, but she did not know how much she had won. She testified she had been arrested at the casino on a drug distribution charge that was later dropped.

In its reasons for judgment, the trial court found Ms. Norred's testimony “less than credible, particularly her inflation of certain alleged monthly expenses.” The trial court found it dubious that Ms. Norred required $3,223.80 for monthly maid services, or $3,585.00 for monthly property maintenance. The trial court also noted that Ms. Norred listed the monthly utility expenses at $2,137.00, although she acknowledged that they were closer to $1,200.00 to $1,300.00 per month. In addition, Ms. Norred had failed to include the $400.00 per month rental income that she received from a property she owned separately in Holden. Further, the trial court recognized that Ms. Norred allowed Mr. Ogilvie and his family to live in the guest house rent-free, and noted that Mr. Ogilvie did not pay child support for their child together. The trial court noted that Mr. Lockhart had given Ms. Norred between $500.00 and $600.00 per month, and had given her $5,000.00 in March of 2023 to retain a lawyer, as well as $2,000.00 that she used for a trip to Disney World. The trial court determined that Ms. Norred was entitled to limited interim spousal support in the amount of a lump sum of $20,000.00, minus $12,000.00 that it calculated Mr. Lockhart had already given Ms. Norred.

The factors used in determining an award of interim spousal support are the claimant party's needs, the payor's ability to pay, any interim or final child support obligation, and the standard of living of the parties during the marriage. See La. C.C. art. 113(A). In regard to Ms. Norred's needs, she was unemployed at the direction of Mr. Lockhart. She had no college degree, and her sole income was $400.00 in rent from one of the two pieces of property that she owned separately. She was a co-owner of the Waterfront property with Mr. Lockhart. She testified she had no other income or assets, other than properties located in Holden and Satsuma, as well as $400.00 in rent collected from the Holden property. Mr. Lockhart did not introduce any evidence to contradict Ms. Norred's testimony.

A claimant demonstrates the need for interim spousal support if she establishes that she lacks sufficient income or ability to earn sufficient income to sustain the style or standard of living that she enjoyed while she resided with the other spouse. Lambert, 960 So.2d at 928. Need is defined as the total amount sufficient to maintain that spouse in a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed prior to a separation, limited only by the other spouse's ability to pay. Lambert, 960 So.2d at 929.

Ms. Norred established her need as determined by her affidavit, her testimony, and her documents. Mr. Lockhart stipulated he had the ability to pay any sum calculated as need for Ms. Norred, and Ms. Norred established the parties enjoyed a very comfortable lifestyle. We find the trial court's $20,000.00 lump sum award for interim spousal support, minus $12,000.00 the trial court calculated that Mr. Lockhart had already given Ms. Norred, was manifestly erroneous, as Ms. Norred proved her need for a higher amount of interim spousal support. Further, there was no evidence that the amounts given to Ms. Norred by Mr. Lockhart were given as interim spousal support payments.

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. 3/9/22), 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.

Ms. Norred introduced evidence including credit card statements and monthly bills, and testified to having maid services, lawn care, travel, and a very comfortable lifestyle that included cash shopping sprees. Although the trial court determined that Ms. Norred was “less than credible” and found that she exaggerated some of her monthly expenses, we find that, regardless of her testimony, the documentary evidence presented by Ms. Norred, along with the absence of conflicting evidence from Mr. Lockhart, clearly demonstrated that Ms. Norred's needs and standard of living during the marriage were greater than the trial court's award of interim spousal support.

Ms. Norred's income and expense affidavit and documented bills include an installment plan for dental veneers of $33.95 per week or $135.80 per month, a Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance premium of $730.16 per month, a car payment of $878.99 per month, a car insurance payment of $533.93 per month, gas and oil for the car totaling $500.00 per month, an AT&T bill averaging $388.73 per month, a Rev internet, television, and home phone bill averaging $399.67 per month, a National Water bill for $45.77 per month, a security system bill of $23.50 per month, a Demco bill averaging $1,423.22 per month, lawn care expenses of $480.00 per month, a natural gas bill of $434.00 per month, food and household supplies at $1,200.00 per month, out of pocket medical and dental expenses of $250.00 per month, glasses/contact lenses at $66.00 per month, and personal grooming expenses of $116.00 per month. In addition, pest control services were $125.00 quarterly, plus $212.00 twice per year for the termite contract, for a total of $924.00 per year, divided by twelve months, for a total of $77.00 per month. We find Ms. Norred proved these expenses, totaling $7,682.77 per month, as her needs. After deducting her monthly income of $400.00 per month, her total monthly “needs” or expenses are $7,282.77.

In addition, there was evidence of other expenses incurred during the short marriage that were not included in the above list. For example, the First Guaranty Bank statements introduced at the hearing also reflect deposits, withdrawals, and payments via check, which paint a very comfortable lifestyle. From October 22, 2022, to the date that the account was closed on February 21, 2023, the total deposits amounted to $145,475.77 for an average of $36,368.94 per month over this four-month period.

Further evidence submitted at the hearing showed that the parties had purchases on a Disney credit card from October 21, 2022, to January 30, 2023, in the amount of $33,328.10 for an average of $11,109.37 per month for the three-month period. Clearly, these records alone evidence the standard of living of the parties during the marriage and justify a higher award than that rendered by the trial court

Ms. Norred filed her claim for spousal support on April 25, 2023, and the parties were divorced approximately five months later on September 13, 2023. Thus, Ms. Norred is entitled an award of interim spousal support, which commences on the date of demand and terminates 180 days (six months) after the judgment of divorce, for a total of eleven months. See La. C.C. art. 113(A). Therefore, we amend the award to $7,500.00 per month for eleven months, for a total award of $82,500.00, with no credits given for amounts previously given by Mr. Lockhart to Ms. Norred.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the trial court judgment awarding interim spousal support in favor of Rickie Lynn Norred is amended to an award of $7,500.00 per month for eleven months, for a total amount of $82,500.00, and, as amended, the judgment is hereby affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed against the defendant, George Dewitt Lockhart.

AMENDED AND AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Mr. Lockhart's petition lists a marriage date of October 21, 2022. Ms. Norred's answer states that the date of the marriage was October 22, 2022, and she testified twice that the parties were married on that date. We note that the trial court's reasons for judgment state the date of the marriage as October 21, 2022, as listed in the petition.

2.   Louisiana Civil Code article 102 provides:Except in the case of a covenant marriage, 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.The motion shall be a rule to show cause filed after all such delays have elapsed.

GREENE, J.

PENZATO, J. concurs. MILLER, J. concurs. Wolfe, J. dissents without reasons.