Opinion ID: 1736742
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jurisprudential and Statutory Background

Text: In Dixon v. Dixon's Executors, 4 La. 188 (1832), this Court held that property acquired by a husband after moving to Louisiana, while his wife remained in Pennsylvania, was not subject to the community of acquets and gains. Thus, the property acquired in Louisiana was classified as separate property. Some years later, however, the Legislature codified article 2400 of the Civil Code of 1870 and abrogated Dixon. Article 2400 stated: [a]ll property acquired in this state by non-resident married persons, whether the title thereto be in the name of either the husband or wife, or in their joint names, shall be subject to the same provisions of law which regulate the community of acquets and gains between citizens of this state. LA. CIV.CODE art. 2400 (1870) (repealed by 1979 La. Acts, No. 709 § 7). In Succession of Dill, 155 La. 47, 98 So. 752 (1923), this Court interpreted former article 2400. Furthermore, the First Circuit followed Dill in Fuori v. Fuori, 334 So.2d 488 (La.App. 1 Cir.1976). While there have been obvious changes in Louisiana's law of matrimonial regimes, we find Dill and Fuori relevant because of their factual similarity to the case sub judice. We also find Robinson, supra, important because it is factually distinguishable from the instant case. We believe that Dill and Fuori were correct under the old law. Under the 1979 revisions, however, we find that the same facts must yield a different outcome. Considering the forgoing, we find the court of appeal's reliance on Dill, Fuori and Robinson to be misplaced. Therefore, we will address each case in turn. In Dill, the decedent husband married Caroline Rogers in the state of New York in 1887. The couple shortly thereafter moved to Texas. The husband then moved to Louisiana while, in 1902, his wife was committed to an insane asylum in New York. In 1904, Caroline Rogers' daughter (the stepdaughter of the decedent) was legally appointed to serve as her mother's curatrix. As a Louisiana domiciliary, the husband acquired an estate comprised of movable property valued at approximately $60,000. In 1922, just prior to his death, the husband executed a valid will declaring his sister, Mrs. Julia Dill Patton, as his sole heir. After Mr. Dill's death, his stepdaughter filed a claim on behalf of her mother for one-half of the decedent's Louisiana estate. She claimed that because Louisiana is a community property state, Mr. Dill's unilateral move to Louisiana evoked this state's governing community of acquets and gains. In interpreting former Civil Code article 2400, the Dill Court held we cannot conceive that the Legislature could possibly intend that in such a partnership [marriage] the property of the non-resident spouse should be common property, whilst that of the resident spouse should remain the separate property of that spouse. Succession of Dill, 98 So. at 754. The Dill Court, therefore, concluded that the proper interpretation of former article 2400 is that all property acquired by married persons in this state becomes community property, regardless of where both or either of them reside. See id. at 755. In Fuori, supra, the First Circuit relied exclusively on our opinion in Dill. Ellen Watson Fuori (wife) and Michael Fuori (husband) married in the state of New York in 1936. The couple remained in New York for more than four years. They later moved to Texas, where they remained for two years, after the husband accepted a position as a pilot. They subsequently moved back to New York and then to Florida as the husband's employment changed. See Fuori, 334 So.2d at 489-90. After contention in their marriage, the wife returned to New York and the husband moved to Louisiana. In attempts to reconcile, the wife repeatedly asked if she could join her husband in Louisiana. The husband, however, suggested that she not. Finally, in 1974, the wife filed an action in Louisiana seeking separation from bed and board on grounds of cruel treatment. [2] She also asserted an interest in one-half of all property the husband acquired while living in Louisiana. The trial court rendered judgment on behalf of the wife. See id. at 490-91. On appeal, the First Circuit found that because the couple did not contract otherwise within the applicable one year statutory period, the community of acquets and gains applied to all property acquired by the Louisiana-domiciled spouse. See id. at 494. As such, under the pre 1979 revisions of the Code articles on matrimonial regimes, the husband could unilaterally establish domicile for himself and his spouse and the community of acquets and gains appropriately applied. With 1979 La. Acts No. 709, however, the legislature enacted Civil Code article 2334, infra, and repealed article 2400. In analyzing article 2334, professors Katherine Spaht & W. Lee Hargrave state that in view of a companion act, [3] there was no longer a basis for arguing that Louisiana's law of community property becomes applicable when only one spouse becomes a Louisiana domiciliary. 16 LOUISIANA CIVIL LAW TREATISE: MATRIMONIAL REGIMES, § 9.1 n. 5 (2d ed. 1997)(SPAHT & HARGRAVE) (emphasis added). Moreover, we are mindful that one of the main legislative focuses from 1973 to 1979 was to equalize the role of husband and wife and enact equal management legislation. See Janet Mary Riley, Analysis of the 1980 Revision of the Matrimonial Regimes Law of Louisiana, 29 LOY. L.REV. 453, 454 (1980); see also La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:2841-42 (Supp.1978) (repealed by 1979 La. Acts No. 709 § 5). As such, the husband is no longer lord and master [4] of his wife and her patrimony. See generally, Nina Nichols Pugh, The Evolving Role of Women in the Louisiana Law: Recent Legislative and Judicial Changes, 42 LA. L.REV. 1571 (1982); Katherine S. Spaht & Cynthia Samuel, Equal Management Revisited: 1979 Legislative Modifications of the 1978 Matrimonial Regimes Law, 40 LA. L.REV. 83 (1979). The equal management system the Legislature adopted in 1979 is similar to that of the other community property states. See Riley, 29 LOY. L.REV. at 455 n. 6 (citations omitted). It, therefore, seems untenable in this day-and-age, where spouses act independently and on equal footing, that the defendant should be able to assert an interest in movable property acquired by the plaintiff in Louisiana, while the plaintiff cannot assert the same in property acquired by the defendant in South Carolina. In Robinson, this Court determined the appropriate ownership interest of partitioned community property belonging to spouses who were domiciled in Louisiana. June Coleman (wife) and Leslie Robinson (husband) were married in 1955. During their marriage, the husband was employed with the federal government as an administrative law judge. Consequently, he was transferred to different states on many occasions. They lived as husband and wife in Wyoming, Texas, California and Virginia; however, they spent the majority of their marriage in Louisiana. See Robinson, 778 So.2d at 1110. The parties were judicially separated in 1986. At that time, they had been living together in Louisiana since 1978. On their date of separation, the community of acquets and gains was terminated. As such, the husband subsequently established domicile in North Carolina. The wife, however, remained in Louisiana. See id. In Robinson, we affirmed the long-standing position that Louisiana is a community property state. The facts in Robinson, however, are distinguishable from the case sub judice. In Robinson, both spouses lived in Louisiana. As such, the community of acquets and gains was properly established. Conversely, in the instant case, only the plaintiff established domicile in Louisiana. Therefore, the community of acquets and gains was never established in this state. Accordingly, under the 1979 Code revisions, we find the court of appeal's emphasis to be misplaced. With the purpose of the 1979 Code revisions in mind, our attention is properly turned to the express language of Civil Code article 2334. It provides: The legal regime of community of acquets and gains applies to spouses domiciled in this state, regardless of their domicile at the time of marriage or the place of the celebration of their marriage. (emphasis added). A comment to article 2334 notes that spouses not domiciled in Louisiana at the time of their marriage become subject to the provisions of this Title from the moment they become Louisiana domiciliaries. Id. (comment (b)) (emphasis added). Moreover, in examining the plural use of the term spouses, we are mindful of professors Spaht & Hargrave's position that the predecessor article to our current Civil Code [5] supports the conclusion that if only one spouse moves to Louisiana and establishes domicile here, the Louisiana law of matrimonial regimes, and even more particularly the legal regime of the community of acquets and gains, is not applicable. SPAHT & HARGRAVE, § 9.1. We agree with the court of appeal's application of Louisiana law. We, however, disagree with the court's reliance on Dill and Fuori. Both cases interpreted a Code article the Legislature expressly repealed in 1979. Furthermore, we note the Legislature's singular use of the word spouse in article 3523 and contrast it with the plural spouses in articles 2329 & 2334, supra. Therefore, we believe the court of appeal erred in holding that Civil Code article 2334 requires only one spouse to become a Louisiana domiciliary for the community property regime to govern. We are persuaded by the purpose of 1979 La. Acts No. 709 and its effort to treat husband and wife equally. We must assume that the Legislature intentionally used the plural spouses in article 2334 and did not do so in error. Use of the plural form suggest[s] that for the matrimonial regimes law of Louisiana to apply, proof is required that both spouses have moved into and acquired a domicile in Louisiana.... Thus, the quoted language [article 2334] negates any inference that Louisiana's legal regime of the community of acquets and gains may apply to a non-Louisiana spouse. SPAHT & HARGRAVE, § 9.1 (emphasis in original).