Case Name: Mrs. Lucille JOHNSON, wife of Jerry Ray FOSTER v. Jerry Ray FOSTER
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1971-03-08
Citations: 246 So. 2d 70
Docket Number: No. 4327
Parties: Mrs. Lucille JOHNSON, wife of Jerry Ray FOSTER v. Jerry Ray FOSTER.
Judges: Before REGAN, CHASEZ and LEM-MON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 246
Pages: 70–73

Head Matter:
Mrs. Lucille JOHNSON, wife of Jerry Ray FOSTER v. Jerry Ray FOSTER.
No. 4327.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
March 8, 1971.
Rehearing Denied April 5, 1971.
Writ Refused May 26, 1971.
Frank J. D’Amico, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hobart O. Pardue, Jr., Springfield, for defendant-appellee.
Before REGAN, CHASEZ and LEM-MON, JJ.

Opinion:
REGAN, Judge.
The plaintiff, Lucille Johnson Foster, instituted this action against the defendant, Jerry Ray Foster, seeking a partition of the assets of the community of acquets and gains which existed between them. The request for the partition was contained in the plaintiff's prayer for a final divorce, and while the trial court seemed troubled by this form of procedure both parties agreed that it was a correct one.
The defendant answered and simply denied the allegations delineated in the petition of the plaintiff.
Judgment was rendered in due course granting the plaintiff's request for a divorce, and at the suggestion of counsel the court merely reserved the rights of the parties to a partition. Thereafter, a trial occurred for the purpose of adducing evidence relative to various claims by the parties for credits and offsets against the community, however, the court neither ordered a partition nor referred the parties to a notary public for final settlement of the community in conformity with the rationale of Articles 4604 and 4605 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Instead, the court merely awarded various amounts in favor of the defendant and against the community and likewise awarded a claim against the defendant in favor of the community. From that judgment, the plaintiff has prosecuted this appeal.
The lower court's judgment is erroneous in several respects, the most important of which is its failure to grant the relief for which the plaintiff prayed and to which she is clearly entitled, namely a partition of the community property. Such a judgment is the predicate upon which the remainder of the partition process must be based. Only after the lower court has decreed a partition and referred the matter to a notary public can the various disputes now being argued before us, both orally and in brief, be presented for a final determination.
There is another area in which the trial court erred, which, in order to avoid unnecessary litigation, should be disposed of at this point in the partition proceeding. The lower court used the date of the judgment of divorce as the date from which the various debits and credits for expenditures made or items received should be calculated. However, Article 155 of the Civil Code is quite clear in its pronouncement that the community is dissolved as of the date of the filing of the petition for separation from bed and board and not the date of the judgment of divorce. Hence, the community of acquets and gains existing between the plaintiff and the defendant was dissolved as of January 14, 1964, and the paraphernal nature of the funds expended by either party and the amounts thereof must be determined as of this date.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the lower court is reversed, and the matter is now remanded for such additional proceedings as the nature of the case may require, all of which shall be in conformity with the rationale expressed here-inabove.
The costs of this appeal shall be divided equally between the parties. All other costs incurred herein shall await the final determination hereof.
Reversed and remanded.
. See Butler v. Butler, 228 So.2d 339 (La.App.1969).
. In this case, in view of the fact that the parties are able to agree upon the valuation placed on the immovable property which is a community asset, it should be mentioned that Article 4604 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows for the use under appropriate circumstances of a descriptive detailed list similar to that used in succession proceedings.