Clemons v. Clemons
Louisiana Court of Appeal
960 So. 2d 1068 (2007)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Tony Clemons (defendant) obtained his veterinary degree two years after his marriage to Patricia Clemons (plaintiff). During the marriage, Patricia financially contributed to Tony’s degree and worked at Tony’s veterinary practice, Rocking Rooster Veterinary Services (RRVS). Tony and Patricia divorced after eight years of marriage, shortly before Tony was scheduled to expand RRVS and further grow his practice. By the time of the divorce, the Clemonses had accumulated significant community property, including RRVS. The trial court divided the community property, awarded Patricia an equalization payment to account for Tony keeping RRVS and other property, and awarded Patricia an additional $17,500 for her financial contributions to Tony’s veterinary degree. Tony appealed, arguing that Patricia was not entitled to an additional award for contributing to Tony’s degree because she had already benefited from Tony’s enhanced earning capacity. Tony had obtained his veterinary degree two years into the eight-year marriage. Patricia challenged, arguing that she had not benefited from Tony’s enhanced earning capacity because the family residence was a modest mobile home and the marriage ended just before Tony was scheduled to expand his practice.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peatross, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.