- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011