- 31 - husband.” 16 Spaht & Hargrave, sec. 8.5, n.9 and associated text. We have not been directed to, and our research has not disclosed, anything in the legislative history of the enactment of article 2332 that suggests that the words “or parishes” were intended to require new filings in the circumstances of the instant case.20 Respondent raises the concern that a ruling in favor of petitioners-- would mean that third parties would have to search the conveyance records of each of the 64 parishes in the State of Louisiana in order to assure themselves that the parties had not filed a matrimonial agreement that would affect the third parties’ right as to petitioners’ movables. * * * Respondent submits that this result would be completely contradictory to the purpose of La. Civ. Code art. 2332 (West 1985), which provides in a clear and straightforward 20 Spaht and Hargrave note as follows (16 Spaht & Hargrave, sec. 8.5): Indeed, when the legislation was drafted, central statewide registry of matrimonial agreements was part of the proposal, rendering unnecessary a continuing registration as spouses moved about the state. That proposal was defeated, however.10 The result is that in a mobile society, third persons are not well protected with respect to matrimonial agreements that were contracted when the spouses were domiciled elsewhere. In a crucial situation, a search of the records in 64 parishes would be required to ascertain with certainty that no such agreement was recorded in the state. 10 K. Spaht and C. Samuel, Equal Management Revisited: 1979 Legislative Modifications of the 1978 Matrimonial Regimes Law, 40 La. L. Rev. 84, 106; La. H.B. No. 802, 5th Reg. Sess. (1979).Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011