- 36 -
and that they bought “all their [large] property and other
assets” separately as evidence that they did, indeed, conform to
the terms of their marriage contract.
We agree with petitioners’ conclusions for the following
reasons.
Firstly, because respondent relies on Knoepfler v.
Knoepfler, supra, and that case has some surface similarities to
the instant case, it may be appropriate to examine more deeply
the setting of Knoepfler and the expressed rationale of the
Louisiana courts. Knoepfler v. Knoepfler, supra, was a dispute
about the level of required child support obligations, the
parents having divorced each other and each having married a new
spouse. The father had been ordered to pay child support. The
father moved to decrease the amount of child support; the mother
responded with a petition to increase the amount of child
support. At the trial court hearing, the father:
introduced into evidence the matrimonial agreement in which
Mr. Knoepfler and his second spouse established a separation
of property regime. The [trial] court disallowed testimony
as to the intent behind the agreement. The court stated
that he was “not considering the [second] wife’s income.”
553 So. 2d at 1032.
The trial court decreased the amount of child support. The
mother appealed, assigning as error (1) the trial court’s refusal
to consider the income of the father’s second spouse and (2) the
trial court’s conclusion that the evidence showed a change in
circumstances which could justify the reduction. 553 So. 2d at
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011