Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/450/455/case.php
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 19:06:52
Document Index: 88723875

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1601', 'Art. 2404', 'Art. 2346', 'Art. 2347', 'Art. 2404', 'Art. 2404', 'Art. 2404', 'Art. 2404', 'Art. 2334', 'Art. 2404']

KIRCHBERG V. FEENSTRA, 450 U. S. 455 (1981) - US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE
US Supreme Court Decisions On-Line> Volume 450 > KIRCHBERG V. FEENSTRA, 450 U. S. 455 (1981)
KIRCHBERG V. FEENSTRA, 450 U. S. 455 (1981)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 450 U. S. 455
1. Article 2404 violated the Equal Protection Clause. Gender-based discrimination is unconstitutional absent a showing that the classification substantially furthers an important governmental interest, and it is immaterial that, under the earlier statutory provisions, appellee could have made a "declaration by authentic act" prohibiting her husband from executing a mortgage on her home without her consent. The "absence of an insurmountable barrier" will not redeem an otherwise unconstitutionally discriminatory law. Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U. S. 762, 430 U. S. 774. Because appellant has failed to offer any justification for the challenged classification, and because the State, by declining to appeal from the decision below, has apparently abandoned any claim that an chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J.,and BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. STEWART, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which REHNQUIST, J., joined, post, p. 450 U. S. 463.
In 1974, appellee Joan Feenstra filed a criminal complaint against her husband, Harold Feenstra, charging him with molesting their minor daughter. While incarcerated on that chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Anticipating Mrs. Feenstra's defense to the foreclosure action, Kirchberg, in March, 1976 filed this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a declaratory judgment against Mrs. Feenstra that he was not liable under the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq., for any nondisclosures concerning the mortgage he held on the Feenstra home. In her answer to Kirchberg's complaint, Mrs. Feenstra alleged as a counterclaim that Kirchberg has violated the Act, but also included a second counterclaim chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
While Mrs. Feenstra's appeal from the District Court's order was pending before the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Louisiana Legislature completely revised its code provisions relating to community property. In so doing, the State abandoned the "head and master" concept embodied in Art. 2404, and instead granted spouses equal control over the disposition of community property. La.Civ.Code Ann., Art. 2346 (West Supp. 1981). [Footnote 3] The new code also provided that community immovables could not be alienated, leased, or otherwise encumbered without the concurrence of both spouses. La.Civ.Code Ann., Art. 2347 (West Supp. 1981). [Footnote 4] These provisions, however, did not take effect until January 1, 1980, and the Court of Appeals was therefore required to consider whether Art. 2404, the Civil Code provision which had authorized Mr. Feenstra to mortgage his home in 1974 without his wife's knowledge or consent, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
By granting the husband exclusive control over the disposition of community property, Art. 2404 clearly embodies the chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
type of express gender-based discrimination that we have found unconstitutional absent a showing that the classification is tailored to further an important governmental interest. In defending the constitutionality of Art. 2404, appellant Kirchberg does not claim that the provision serves any such interest. [Footnote 7] Instead, appellant attempts to distinguish this Court's decisions in cases such as Craig v. Boren, supra, and Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979), which struck down similar gender-based statutory classifications, by arguing that appellee Feenstra, as opposed to the disadvantaged individuals in those cases, could have taken steps to avoid the discriminatory impact of Art. 2404. Appellant notes that, under Art. 2334 of the Louisiana Civil Code, in effect at the time Mr. Feenstra executed the mortgage, Mrs. Feenstra could have made a "declaration by authentic act" prohibiting her husband from executing a mortgage on her home without her consent. [Footnote 8] By failing to take advantage of this procedure, Mrs. Feenstra, in appellant's view, became the "architect of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Appellant's final contention is that, even if Art. 2404 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the mortgage he holds on the Feenstra home is nonetheless chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Thus, the dispute between the parties at its core involves the validity of a single chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This provision has been repealed. See infra at 3 and < a>S. 458|>458, and nn. 3 and < a>| 3 and < a>S. 455fn4|>4.