- 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 issue
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011