Langley v. Langley

747 So. 2d 183 (1999)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Langley v. Langley

Louisiana Court of Appeal
747 So. 2d 183 (1999)

Facts

Dr. John M. Langley and Patricia M. Langley were divorced. The Langleys had five children together, and as part of their divorce, John paid Patricia $4,500 per month in alimony for 48 months, ending a few months after their youngest child would be school aged, and $5,000 per month in child support. As the end of her alimony period approached, Patricia filed a motion to modify the child-support order, alleging that the end of her alimony payments as well as the children’s increasing expenses constituted a change in circumstances requiring an increase in child support to $12,210 per month. John argued that the child-support payments should be reduced because now that their youngest child would soon be school aged, Patricia, who had a law degree and was a registered nurse, could find employment and contribute to the children’s expenses. Patricia responded that she had five children to care for and planned to homeschool, so she could not find employment. Patricia argued that John was voluntarily underemployed, having worked considerably more during their marriage. John, following the divorce, worked 14 twelve-hour shifts per month as an emergency-room physician, with some additional time for paperwork, and earned between $20,000 and $25,000 per month. John explained that because emergency-room shifts involved high stress and were physically and mentally demanding, the hospital discouraged emergency-room physicians from working more than 13 shifts per month. His 14 twelve-hour shifts were the equivalent of 42 hours per week. Finally, Patricia argued that the entire monthly payment of $9,500 was really child support and not alimony because it all went to the household expenses and children. John argued that because his income had not increased, the trial court could not increase the child-support order. The trial court found that Patricia could obtain some employment, emphasizing her education and training, but agreed that the termination of alimony constituted a changed circumstance, and increased the child-support order to $7,500 per month. Both parties appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Armstrong, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership