## Facts

- Tony Clemons and Patricia Clemons married while Tony was in veterinary school; he obtained his veterinary degree about two years into the marriage.
- During the marriage, Patricia contributed financially toward Tony’s schooling and later worked in the couple’s veterinary practice, Rocking Rooster Veterinary Services (RRVS).
- The marriage lasted about eight years. The parties divorced shortly before Tony planned to expand RRVS and grow the practice.
- At termination of the community, the parties had accumulated significant community property, including RRVS.
- In the community-property partition, the trial court classified RRVS as community property, allocated RRVS to Tony, and ordered an equalizing payment to Patricia to balance the distribution.
- The trial court also awarded Patricia an additional $17,500 based on her financial (and related) support while Tony completed his veterinary degree.
- Tony sought reimbursement for amounts he claimed to have paid from separate funds (after termination of the community) for mortgage payments and fire-insurance premiums on immovable property used by RRVS.
- Tony appealed the partition judgment, challenging (among other things) the $17,500 award to Patricia and the trial court’s denial of his reimbursement claim for mortgage and insurance payments.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could award Patricia $17,500 to compensate her for contributions toward Tony’s veterinary degree when Tony argued she had already received the benefit of his increased earning capacity during the marriage.
2. Whether Tony proved he was entitled to reimbursement for alleged separate-fund payments of mortgage and fire-insurance obligations on immovable property connected to the community veterinary business.
3. What deference the appellate court owes to the trial court’s factual determinations in a community-property partition, including reimbursement findings.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit largely affirmed the partition judgment.
- The court upheld the $17,500 award to Patricia for her contributions toward Tony’s veterinary degree, rejecting Tony’s argument that the award was improper because Patricia had already benefited during the marriage.
- The court upheld the denial of Tony’s reimbursement claim for mortgage payments and fire-insurance premiums, finding no manifest error in the trial court’s determinations based on the record and credibility calls.
- To the extent the opinion addressed other valuation or accounting details, any adjustments did not change the core rulings on the education-related award or reimbursement denial.

## Legal Principles

- A professional degree is not itself community property subject to division, but a trial court may award a supporting spouse a compensatory sum for proven contributions toward the other spouse’s education in appropriate circumstances.
- In deciding whether such a compensatory award is warranted and in what amount, the court may consider the timing of the divorce relative to the anticipated financial returns from the degree and whether the supporting spouse meaningfully shared in those returns during the marriage.
- A spouse seeking reimbursement for separate funds used to satisfy a community obligation must prove both the separate nature/amount of the payments and that the obligation was reimbursable under Louisiana community-property rules.
- Factual findings in a community-property partition—especially those turning on documents, accounting proof, and witness credibility—are reviewed under the manifest error/clearly wrong standard, and appellate courts generally will not reweigh evidence.

## Conclusion

Clemons v. Clemons affirmed a community-property partition in which the husband kept the community veterinary practice subject to an equalizing payment, the wife received an additional $17,500 for her support while the husband completed his veterinary degree, and the husband was denied reimbursement for claimed separate-fund mortgage and insurance payments because the trial court’s fact findings and credibility determinations were not manifestly erroneous.


Clemons v. Clemons, 960 So. 2d 1068 (2007)