Document: 450 U.S. 455 101 S.Ct. 1195 67 L.Ed.2d 428 Karl J. KIRCHBERG, Appellant,v.Joan Paillot FEENSTRA et al. No. 79-1388. Argued Dec. 10, 1980. Decided March 23, 1981. Syllabus In 1974, the husband of appellee Feenstra (hereafter appellee), without her knowledge, executed a mortgage on their jointly owned home as security husband's promissory note to appellant. The pursuant now superseded Louisiana statute (Art. 2404) that gave unilateral right dispose community property his spouse's consent. 1976, after refused pay note, appellant commenced foreclosure proceedings and instituted instant action in Federal District Court for declaratory relief. Appellee asserted counterclaim challenging constitutionality Art. 2404, its Governor were joined third-party defendants counterclaim. granted State's motion summary judgment. While appellee's appeal Appeals was pending, completely revised community-property code provisions so grant spouses equal control over disposition such property. Because new did not take effect until January 1, 1980, it by husband. held 2404 violated Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment, but limited decision prospective application because ruling "would create substantial hardship with respect rights obligations within State Louisiana." Held : 1. Article Clause. Gender-based discrimination is unconstitutional absent showing classification substantially furthers an important governmental interest, immaterial under earlier statutory could have made "declaration authentic act" prohibiting from executing "absence insurmountable barrier" will redeem otherwise unconstitutionally discriminatory law. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 762, 774, 97 1459, 1467, 52 31. has failed offer any justification challenged State, declining below, apparently abandoned claim government objective served Appeals' judgment affirmed. Pp. 459-461. 2. There no ambiguity only other question properly before this Court, which whether applies case. dispute between parties at core involves validity single mortgage—that husband—and passing clearly intended resolve controversy adversely 461-463. 609 F.2d 727, Alan F. Schoenberger, New Orleans, La., appellant, pro hac vice, special leave Court. Barbara Hausman-Smith, White River Junction, Vt., appellees. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion 1 we consider husband, "head master" wife, Concluding provision violates affirm Fifth Circuit invalidating statute. 2 * Joan filed criminal complaint against Harold Feenstra, charging him molesting minor daughter. incarcerated charge, Mr. retained Kirchberg, attorney, represent him. signed $3,000 prepayment legal services be performed Kirchberg. As favor he wife. Mrs. informed mortgage, consent required state statute, former Civil Code Ann. (West 1971), exclusive property.1 3 eventually dropped charge He return home, instead obtained separation wife moved out State. first learned existence when Kirchberg threatened foreclose unless she paid amount outstanding After obligation, order executory process directing local sheriff seize sell home. 4 Anticipating Feenstra's defense action, 1976 United States Eastern Louisiana, seeking liable Truth Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 seq., nondisclosures concerning answer Kirchberg's complaint, alleged also included second scheme empowered unilaterally execute constitutional parties, claim. characterizing attack "the bedrock Louisiana's system," F.Supp. 642, 644 (1977).2 5 Court's pending Circuit, Legislature relating doing, concept embodied La.Civ.Code Ann., 2346 Supp.1981).3 provided immovables alienated, leased, or encumbered concurrence both spouses. 2347 Supp.1981).4 These provisions, however, therefore had authorized 1974 wife's knowledge consent, Amendment. 6 explicitly discriminated basis gender, inquired related achievement objective. See, e. g., Wengler Druggist Mutual Insurance Co., 446 142, 100 1540, 64 107 (1980); Craig Boren, 429 190, 451, 50 397 (1976). court noted advanced one provision—that "[o]ne two designated manager community."5 agreed interest defining manner managed, found show why mandatory designation necessary further interest. concluded However, believed retroactive Louisiana," application. 735-736 (1979). Only appealed We probable jurisdiction. 917, 1849, 270 (1980).6 II 7 By granting property, embodies type express gender-based tailored defending does serves interest.7 Instead, attempts distinguish decisions cases supra, Orr Orr, 440 268, 99 1102, 59 306 (1979), struck down similar classifications, arguing opposed disadvantaged individuals those cases, taken steps avoid impact 2404. Appellant notes 2334 Code, time consent.8 failing advantage procedure, appellant's view, became "architect own predicament" should heard complain 8 focusing preclude mortgaging overlooks critical question: Whether previously noted, 31 (1977). See Frontiero Richardson, 411 677, 93 1764, 36 583 (1973). Cf. Taylor 419 522, 95 692, 42 690 (1975); Reed Reed, 404 71, 92 251, 30 225 (1971). Instead burden remains party uphold expressly discriminates sex advance "exceedingly persuasive justification" classification. Personnel Administrator Mass. Feeney, 442 256, 273, 2282, 2293, 60 870 Ins. U.S., 151, S.Ct., 1546. justification, 2404.9 III 9 Appellant's final contention even if holds nonetheless valid asserts ambiguous apply dispositions December 12, 1979, date court's decision, effective urges adopt latter interpretation ground contrary would grave uncertainties mortgages husbands decision. 10 decline address concerns about potential us case, issue find ambiguity.10 This case arose abstract disagreement attempt brought end, specifically sought relief "a [her] . void having been recorded statute." Thus, 11 Accordingly, 12 So ordered. 13 STEWART, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring result. 14 Since men women similarly situated all relevant purposes management I agree allowed wives real estate spousal Michael M. Sonoma County Superior 464, 477-479, 1200, 1208-1209, 437 (STEWART, J., concurring). clear correct holding applied particular equally explicit announcement prospectively means invalid reason pertinent part: "The head master partnership gains; administers effects, disposes revenues they produce, may alienate them onerous title, permission wife." repealed. infra, 458, nn. 4. challenge dismissal prejudice Act claims. provides "[e]ach spouse acting alone manage, control, law." either renounce concur immovables. 2348 Supp.1981). assertion brief Appeals. 735 Governor, appellees, subsequently dismiss extensive revisions law, see 4, rendered moot these legislative changes do govern 1974. suggestion mootness rejected. 449 916, 313, 66 144 (1980). Nor speculate justification. make claimed ." 1546, failure replace gender-neutral suggest hard pressed furthered 2334, existed provided: "Where title immovable stands names mortgaged sold where declaration act authority are lease, sale conveyance records parish situated." replaced alienating encumbering spouse. n. 3, supra. ruling, reject secondary argument rejected integral part law invalidation call into Code. functioned rather sex. Indeed, view some exists applicability Circuit's appears recent vintage. never clarification scope regarded sufficiently adverse binding warrant review merits

Category: 1