- 29 -
issue,17 in order to be effective toward third persons as to
movables during the years in issue.18
The parties agree that this is a matter of first impression
under Louisiana law and present this matter to us for decision in
the instant case. Both sides direct our attention to 16 Spaht &
Hargrave, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, Matrimonial Regimes (West
2d ed. 1997), hereinafter sometimes referred to as 16 Spaht &
Hargrave.19
17 Both sides agree that the marriage contract was “filed
for registry” in Jefferson Parish on Feb. 2, 2000, but this
filing is not effective toward third persons for the years in
issue.
18 The instant case does not present any question or
contention as to whether--
(1) the marriage contract resulted in a matrimonial
regime that was partly legal and partly contractual (art.
2326);
(2) the marriage contract involved matters prohibited
by public policy (art. 2329);
(3) the marriage contract violated any of the limits of
contractual freedom set forth in art. 2330 or established
under any other Louisiana law;
(4) the marriage contract violated any of the
requirements as to form set forth in art. 2331 or
established under any other Louisiana law; or
(5) Sandra’s efforts on behalf of the plumbing business
result in a recognition of some amount of income to Sandra
because of the operation of art. 2368.
19 Petitioners’ citations are to the 1989 edition; the
texts and section numbers of the matters petitioners referred to
appear to be unchanged in the 1997 edition, but the page numbers
are different.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011