- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011