Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Appeal contests pension option and life-insurance framing in divorce judgment
Summary
In the Thibodeaux divorce appeal counsel challenged the trial court’s selection of pension Option A over Option C, arguing the judge misapplied life-insurance reasoning and failed to value the pension; the panel discussed remand vs. direction to the trial court.
Appellate counsel for the wife argued the trial judge erred by choosing Option A for the husband’s public pension when the record showed the wife’s ongoing needs and the judge focused on insurance concerns without evidence of pension present value or life-insurance cost. Counsel asked the panel to either direct the trial judge toward Option C or remand for further findings.
The panel and opposing counsel examined the extensive trial-court findings (49 pages), whether the absence of valuation evidence made it impossible to direct relief, and whether the judge’s life-insurance step-down schedule and the linkage (or lack thereof) between insurance and pension option choice was internally consistent. Appellee counsel defended the judgment as reasonable in light of equal division of pension benefits and concerns about gaps before pension pay status.
The panel also questioned enforcement mechanisms (contempt, breach actions, or modification) and whether accrued leave or PTO items were properly treated as divisible assets. After argument and statutory references, counsel rested and the case was submitted.
