Clay v. Sutton

293 So.3d 676

Bobbie J. CLAY, Plaintiff-Appellee

v.James Earl SUTTON, Defendant-Appellant

No. 53,333-CA

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Judgment rendered March 4, 2020

JAMES EARL SUTTON, In Proper Person, Appellant

BOBBIE J. CLAY, In Proper Person, Appellee

Before PITMAN, GARRETT, and COX, JJ.

PITMAN, J.

Defendant James Earl Sutton appeals the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of his ex-wife, Plaintiff Bobbie J. Clay, in the amount of $3,500, which was awarded to her after she filed a suit for "extreme mental and emotional abuse." For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.

FACTS

Plaintiff filed suit in proper person seeking $10,000 against Defendant and alleged that the suit sought damages for extreme mental and emotional abuse by her former spouse. A trial was held on February 19, 2019, and resumed February 21, 2019. The following evidence was adduced.

Plaintiff and Defendant were married to each other in October 2017 and divorced in November 2018. According to Plaintiff, the marriage was contentious from the very beginning. After the ceremony, Defendant left his new bride, Plaintiff, at the church and drove away with his ex-wife, their children and grandchildren in his truck with "just married" written on it. Plaintiff went home alone. Plaintiff's one stipulation prior to marriage to Defendant was that he not be diabetic, because she wanted an intimate relationship with him, and her former partner had been diabetic and unable to perform. Apparently, Defendant lied to Plaintiff and claimed his health was good, but he had been told he was "pre-diabetic." Plaintiff claimed that the marriage was not consummated and that Defendant refused to take medication prescribed by the doctor. Defendant disputed Plaintiff's version of these and other facts.

According to Plaintiff, in addition to lying about being diabetic, Defendant did many things to irritate Plaintiff, including taking his ex-wife and their children to church every Sunday—the same church where Plaintiff sang in the choir. This was extremely humiliating to Plaintiff because Defendant sat in church with his ex-wife and children while she was singing, and everyone at their church witnessed this outlandish behavior and wondered about what type of wife she was being to him. Also, over Plaintiff's objections, Defendant allowed his ex-wife to ride in the front seat of the truck to church. Plaintiff asked that the ex-wife be relegated to ride in the back seat, but the ex-wife refused to ride there, and Defendant did not insist that she do so. Defendant claims he discussed this with Plaintiff and that Plaintiff accepted the situation with his ex-wife.

Plaintiff incurred many expenses while married to Defendant. She began insuring him on her automobile policy to save him money. In an attempt to fit in with her new husband's family, she purchased 20 bicycles for his grandchildren. Defendant claimed he told her not to purchase the bikes, as did his daughter and other family members.

Plaintiff soon tired of the relationship, out of which she was getting nothing except aggravation and humiliation, so after 4 1/2 months of marriage, she gathered Defendant's clothes and other belongings and made him leave the matrimonial domicile. The couple divorced a year and a month after they married. Plaintiff was represented, pro bono, by a friend.

After the facts of the unhappiness in the marriage were established and Plaintiff's complaints concerning the debts she incurred as a result of the marriage were heard, the trial court attempted to establish the basis for Plaintiff's cause of action.

The trial court asked:

So, these things like that you—the money you expended out for him and everything, why didn't you raise these in the divorce to say, "I should be owed these, you know, the 20 bikes, or the—this was the insurance and all that." These, you know—when you're separating your community property, or you're separating up your divorce, you say these are those things.

Plaintiff responded by stating that her attorney advised her that if property had to be settled, the action would cost her more than she could afford, so she decided to just get divorced. She stated she would not have sued Defendant in the action at bar except for the amount of debt she had as a result of her marriage to him.

The trial court, without noting that her cause of action was infliction of emotional abuse, told Plaintiff that the proof of her claim was insufficient concerning the 20 bicycles and the wedding expenses. In response, Plaintiff stated:

In all fairness, I didn't sue him for the bicycles or whatever went on at the wedding or afterwards. I sued him because of what I feel in my heart. What he did to me was unnecessary. It took away my choice to decide whether or not I wanted to marry a man with diabetes. And if he had told me, if I loved him enough, I would have married him regardless, but that choice was taken away from me because he lied about being a diabetic. So that's why I sued him for $10,000.

The trial court asked her, "So you're not asking for anything back on the bikes or the wedding?" Plaintiff responded, "I sued him for that reason."

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant was represented by counsel. The trial court explained to Plaintiff that she needed to provide proof of the debts for which she was claiming damages and that testimony alone that the debts existed was not enough for it to rule in her favor. It explained to Defendant that if he objected to any of these claims for damages or could show that he had reimbursed her, he, too, would have to provide proof to the court that the money was not owed. It also indicated to Plaintiff that if she was claiming damages for infliction of emotional abuse, she would have to provide proof of the value of her claim, which could be through testimony of counselors or psychologists. It informed Plaintiff and Defendant that it would hold another day open for further evidence to allow them to gather financial information, credit card statements, etc., to prove their respective cases.

A few days later, the parties returned to court, whereupon Plaintiff stated that she was unable to obtain the necessary proof because Wal-Mart could not provide her with the information she needed for another nine days. She gave the court the information she had, which the court did not find helpful. Her credit card receipt reflected purchases from Wal-Mart, but did not indicate the exact items. The trial court allowed her to supplement the record in March 2019 with the proof she later obtained from other sources.

On April 11, 2019, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against ...