STATEMENT OF FACTS The petitioner, Sophie Samara (herein referred to sometimes as “Ms. Samara”), and defendant, Casper Adamsen (herein referred to sometimes as Mr. Adamsen), entered into marriage on January 1, 1990, in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Ms. Samara works as an occupational therapist and Mr. Adamsen has worked as a news anchor for the past 15 years.
No children were born of the marriage between the parties. After 27 years of marriage, Ms. Samara petitioned for divorce on June 17, 2016.
The judgment of divorce was rendered on January 5, 2017. In addition, Ms. Samara sought to partition the community of acquets and gains then existing between the parties. While the parties have been able to divide many of their obligations, they have been unable to reach an amicable resolution involving cosmetic surgery expenses and certain expenses related to spying on the other party. On April 5, 2016, both parties underwent cosmetic surgery. A couple of months before the procedures, the defendant told Ms. Samara of his plan. Ms. Samara voiced, that she did not want her husband to undergo surgery because he was already a distinguished looking man, and the procedures were unnecessary. After many discussions Ms. Samara was unsuccessful in talking the defendant out of undergoing the surgery; he would not listen. In response to the defendant’s decision, Ms. Samara also underwent surgery. While the response was vanity, it was done as a last ditch attempt to stop the defendant from getting his surgery. By telling the defendant that if he was going to get the surgery, then she was too, Ms. Samara thought that the defendant would see how ridiculous the plan was. However, that plan failed. Instead, the defendant was ecstatic that his wife submitted to have surgery alongside him. Ms. Samara had a neck lift and Mr. Adamsen had a forehead and brow lift, as well as skin removal from the eye region. The defendant contests that he got the surgery to look better on the air. He also claims that his coworker, who also had cosmetic surgery, suggested that he consider going through with the procedure. In addition, the defendant contests that his news stations’ ratings had been dropping ever since channel 12 hired an anchor with a more youthful appearance. Neither of the parties’ surgeries were medically necessary. The defendant wanted surgery to look better on camera and Ms. Samara’s decision to get the surgery meant that the arguments stopped with her husband of 27 years. In total the surgeries cost $19,000: $7,00 for Ms. Samara’s and $12,000 for Mr. Adamsen’s. Mr. Adamsen paid for the surgeries with a loan he acquired from his aunt. There is no dispute amongst the parties involving the status of the loan. Ms. Samara stated that she knew something bad would happen if the defendant underwent surgery. This statement unfortunately became true shortly after the procedures. The defendant joined the Men’s Club and the time he spent at home drastically changed; he would leave the house earlier and stay away longer, only seeing his wife on sporadic occasions. Ms. Samara’s daily schedule, on the other hand, did not significantly change. While she did hire a personal trainer to work out with her three times a week, she maintained her schedule and presence at the home post surgery, unlike the defendant. Since the defendant was never home anymore, Ms. Samara hired her brother-in-law as a private investigator a month following …show more content…
The petitioner’s expense in hiring a private investigator was a community obligation because it was used to maintain the marital union. The defendant’s surgery was a separate obligation because it did not benefit the community or the petitioner. Lastly, the defendant’s expense in installing surveillance cameras at the home was a separate obligation because it did not benefit the community or the …show more content…
The first element is not disputed. This present case focuses on the second and third elements: was the obligation for the common interest of the spouses or for the interest of at least on spouse? Whether the debts related to both parties’ cosmetic surgeries are separate or community, and whether certain expenses related to spying on the other party are separate or community, are matters of fact and must be interpreted as
No children were born of the marriage between the parties. After 27 years of marriage, Ms. Samara petitioned for divorce on June 17, 2016.
The judgment of divorce was rendered on January 5, 2017. In addition, Ms. Samara sought to partition the community of acquets and gains then existing between the parties. While the parties have been able to divide many of their obligations, they have been unable to reach an amicable resolution involving cosmetic surgery expenses and certain expenses related to spying on the other party. On April 5, 2016, both parties underwent cosmetic surgery. A couple of months before the procedures, the defendant told Ms. Samara of his plan. Ms. Samara voiced, that she did not want her husband to undergo surgery because he was already a distinguished looking man, and the procedures were unnecessary. After many discussions Ms. Samara was unsuccessful in talking the defendant out of undergoing the surgery; he would not listen. In response to the defendant’s decision, Ms. Samara also underwent surgery. While the response was vanity, it was done as a last ditch attempt to stop the defendant from getting his surgery. By telling the defendant that if he was going to get the surgery, then she was too, Ms. Samara thought that the defendant would see how ridiculous the plan was. However, that plan failed. Instead, the defendant was ecstatic that his wife submitted to have surgery alongside him. Ms. Samara had a neck lift and Mr. Adamsen had a forehead and brow lift, as well as skin removal from the eye region. The defendant contests that he got the surgery to look better on the air. He also claims that his coworker, who also had cosmetic surgery, suggested that he consider going through with the procedure. In addition, the defendant contests that his news stations’ ratings had been dropping ever since channel 12 hired an anchor with a more youthful appearance. Neither of the parties’ surgeries were medically necessary. The defendant wanted surgery to look better on camera and Ms. Samara’s decision to get the surgery meant that the arguments stopped with her husband of 27 years. In total the surgeries cost $19,000: $7,00 for Ms. Samara’s and $12,000 for Mr. Adamsen’s. Mr. Adamsen paid for the surgeries with a loan he acquired from his aunt. There is no dispute amongst the parties involving the status of the loan. Ms. Samara stated that she knew something bad would happen if the defendant underwent surgery. This statement unfortunately became true shortly after the procedures. The defendant joined the Men’s Club and the time he spent at home drastically changed; he would leave the house earlier and stay away longer, only seeing his wife on sporadic occasions. Ms. Samara’s daily schedule, on the other hand, did not significantly change. While she did hire a personal trainer to work out with her three times a week, she maintained her schedule and presence at the home post surgery, unlike the defendant. Since the defendant was never home anymore, Ms. Samara hired her brother-in-law as a private investigator a month following …show more content…
The petitioner’s expense in hiring a private investigator was a community obligation because it was used to maintain the marital union. The defendant’s surgery was a separate obligation because it did not benefit the community or the petitioner. Lastly, the defendant’s expense in installing surveillance cameras at the home was a separate obligation because it did not benefit the community or the …show more content…
The first element is not disputed. This present case focuses on the second and third elements: was the obligation for the common interest of the spouses or for the interest of at least on spouse? Whether the debts related to both parties’ cosmetic surgeries are separate or community, and whether certain expenses related to spying on the other party are separate or community, are matters of fact and must be interpreted as