Preview:

ANTOINETTE GREMILLION GALLATY VERSUS

* *

NO. 2011-CA-1640 COURT OF APPEAL

* DON GALLATY * STATE OF LOUISIANA ******* FOURTH CIRCUIT

APPEAL FROM ST. BERNARD 34TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 101-740, DIVISION "C" Honorable Perry M. Nicosia, Judge ****** Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu ****** (Court composed of Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu, Judge Joy Cossich Lobrano) Eric A. Bopp Walter Rimmer Woodruff, Jr. Anthony Scott Maska EDWARD S. BOPP - A LAW CORPORATION 1350 Park Drive, Suite A P. O. Box 2297 Mandeville, LA 70470--2297 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE Suellen Richardson MAGEE, ZERINGUE, & RICHARDSON, ATTORNEYS 207 East Gibson Street Covington, LA 70433 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

AMENDED, AND AFFIRMED AS AMENDED

The trial court rendered judgments which partitioned the community property of Don Gallaty and Antoinette Gremillion-Gallaty and addressed issues of child support, visitation and contempt. After two hearings on motions for new trial, the judgments became final. Both parties have filed appeals. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Don Gallaty and Antoinette Gremillion-Gallaty were married on January 2, 1993 and divorced on March 30, 2005. In July of 2010, the parties proceeded to trial on the merits on issues of community property, child support, visitation, and contempt. Following the trial, the court rendered two judgments, both of which were signed on July 26, 2010. One judgment partitioned the community property. The other addressed visitation, child support and contempt. Neither party requested a new trial and neither appealed from the judgment partitioning their community property. As to the judgment affecting child support, visitation, and contempt, Mrs. Gallaty filed a motion for a new trial. In her motion, she alleged that the trial court erred when it increased Mr. Gallaty's visitation; failed to address hospitalization, tuition, uncovered medical expenses, and extracurricular activities;

1

and found that Mr. Gallaty demonstrated a change in circumstances sufficient to justify a reduction in his child support obligation. After a hearing on the motion for a new trial, the trial court denied Mrs. Gallaty the relief she requested. However, during the hearing, the parties raised issues that pertained to the partition of the community property, more particularly, the calculation of certain claims for reimbursement. As way of background, in 2009, Mr. Gallaty had been held in contempt of court for failing to pay child support and was cast in judgment for $31,929.37. Pursuant to that judgment, Mr. Gallaty was ordered to purge his contempt by paying this obligation out of his portion of Katrina insurance proceeds belonging to the community. These proceeds were being held in escrow pending the partition. In the judgment partitioning the community, the trial court neglected to account for this child support arrearage owed by Mr. Gallaty to Mrs. Gallaty. In an amended judgment rendered following the hearing on the motion for new trial, the trial court denied Mrs. Gallaty the relief she requested on the issues of visitation, extra expenses and child support. But, the court recalculated the community property allocation to address this child support arrearage and issued judgment on several ancillary issues relevant to this appeal. Specifically, the trial court denied two reimbursement claims by Mrs. Gallaty. The first claim was for insurance proceeds from a community car the couple lost in Hurricane Katrina. The second claim was for certain personal injury settlement proceeds Mrs. Gallaty believed to be her separate property. Mrs. Gallaty filed a second motion for new trial asserting, for the second time, that the court erred in denying her reimbursements for the car destroyed in Hurricane Katrina and in failing to award her the proceeds from her personal injury
2

settlement as separate property. She also alleged that the court erred in denying her reimbursement for rents collected on community rental properties, and that the court again committed an error in calculation with regard to the child support arrearage. The trial court heard this motion and issued another amended judgment on July 28, 2011. This judgment denied the motion with regard to the separate property and the reimbursements, and granted the motion with regard to the community property calculation of the child support arrearage. All issues addressed in the original judgment and in the two judgments on the motions for new trial are now final and both parties have appealed. ISSUES I. II. III. IV. Whether the trial court properly assessed the value of the community home; Whether the trial court properly awarded fair market rental reimbursement to Mrs. Gallaty; Whether the trial court correctly accounted for the child support arrearage owed by Mr. Gallaty; Whether the trial court erred in failing to award Mrs. Gallaty one-half of the insurance proceeds collected by Mr. Gallaty on a Camaro that was destroyed in Hurricane Katrina; and Whether the trial court erred in failing to find that money received by Mrs. Gallaty as a settlement of her personal injury lawsuit was her separate property.

V.

DISCUSSION The trial court is vested with great discretion in effecting a fair partition of community property. Ostarly v. Ostarly, 2007-1521, p. 2 (La.App. 4 Cir. 6/18/08), 988 So.2d 276, 278; Collier v. Collier, 2000-1263, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/18/01), 790 So.2d 759, 762. An appellate court may not set aside a trial court's findings of fact in absence of manifest error or unless they are clearly wrong. Id., Stobart v.

3

State, Through DOTD, 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993). It is well settled that a trial court has broad discretion in adjudicating issues raised in a judicial partition proceeding under LSA

Download 315638.pdf

Louisiana Law