Court Opinion

ID: 9428233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:23:12.503191+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:12.403679
License: Public Domain

Justice Stewart,
with whom Justice Rehnquist joins, concurringin the result.
Since men and women were similarly situated for all relevant purposes with respect to the management and disposition of community property, I agree that Art. 2404 of the Louisiana Civil Code Ann. (West 1971), which allowed husbands but not wives to execute mortgages on jointly owned real estate without spousal consent, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Michael M. v. Sonoma County Superior Court, post, at 477-479 (Stewart, J., concurring).
While it is clear that the Court is correct in holding that the judgment of the Court of Appeals applied to the particular mortgage executed by Mr. Feenstra, it is equally clear that that court’s explicit announcement that its holding was to apply only prospectively means that no other mortgage executed before the date of the decision of the Court of Appeals is invalid by reason of its decision.