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 …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 …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