- 35 - Fuel Oil Corporation v. Puccio, 141 So. 2d 516, [520 (La App. 1962)]’”. Morgavi v. Mumme, 270 So. 2d 540, 543 (La. 1972) (quoting Succession of Caine v. Tanho Land and Cattle Co., 198 So. 2d 439, 444 (La. App. 1967)). “[C]ourts are bound to give effect to all contracts according to the true intent of the parties when the language is clear and leads to no absurd consequences.” Stack v. De Soto Properties, Inc., 59 So. 2d 428, 430 (La. 1952). Respondent asserts on opening brief that a court may consider evidence on the extent to which the parties to the matrimonial agreement are fulfilling the stipulations of the contract, i.e., whether or not and to what extent the two actually share income notwithstanding the existence of the matrimonial agreement. Knoepfler v. Knoepfler, 553 So.2d 1031, 1032 (La. App. 1989). Respondent argues that the evidence in the instant case clearly shows that petitioners did not comply with the terms of their marriage contract because (1) petitioners commingled all their income into four joint checking accounts, (2) petitioners had signature authority on all bank accounts, (3) petitioners transferred funds between the business and personal checking accounts; and (4) petitioners paid business expenses from personal accounts, and vice versa. Petitioners reply that they “merely pooled their resources to provide for the expenses of the marriage”. They point to the fact that they filed separate tax returns for each year in issuePage: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011