- 25 - II. The Marriage Contract Respondent contends that, during the years in issue, the marriage contract was not effective toward third persons because petitioners failed to properly record it. Respondent also contends that, even if the marriage contract was properly recorded, it was nevertheless not effective because petitioners did not conduct their financial affairs in accordance with the contract’s terms. Petitioners maintain11 that: (1) The marriage contract was properly recorded at all relevant times; and (2) they complied with the terms of their marriage contract. We agree with petitioners that the marriage contract was properly recorded at all relevant times, and that it was effective during the years in issue.12 11 Petitioners also maintain that respondent is not a third person protected by the filing requirements of La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2332 (West 1985). Because we conclude that petitioners’ marriage contract was properly recorded at all relevant times, we need not address this contention. 12 It was apparent before the trial that petitioners’ contentions on this issue, if successful, would amount to a victory for Sandra but would expose Michael to the potential of an increased deficiency. This conflict between the individual interests of Sandra and Michael was noted before the trial. The Court discussed this matter with counsel for both sides and both petitioners, ensemble. On the basis of the discussion in chambers and the statements on the record, the Court is satisfied (a) that petitioners’ counsel had previously explained the conflict to both petitioners and it was again explained in chambers, (b) that both petitioners previously understood the matter and that both petitioners understood the matter (continued...)Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011