- 39 -
commingled” such that they cannot be traced to their separate
source that they are deemed community. Curtis v. Curtis, 403 So.
2d 56, 59 (La. 1981). Such treatment is consistent with the
presumption of community property in Louisiana. See La. Civ.
Code Ann. art. 2340 (West 1985).
Applying those holdings to the instant case, respondent
argues that it is impossible to trace the funds petitioners used
from their joint accounts back to the separate funds of either
spouse because petitioners did not “make any effort to track
payments on allegedly separate assets, * * * in order to
establish what was paid for with separate funds.” It is unclear
from the record, however, whether petitioners were asked or even
attempted to track the payments. Moreover, we do not think such
tracking is required. Unlike in the cases cited above, the legal
presumption that the spouses are living in community does not
apply in the instant case because, as we concluded, supra,
petitioners’ marriage contract was properly recorded during the
years in issue. See 16 Spaht & Hargrave sec. 4.7. Further, we
are not deciding the character of the funds petitioners deposited
into their joint accounts, but rather, we are deciding whether
petitioners’ asserted indiscriminate commingling of separate
funds with other separate funds invalidates petitioners’ marriage
contract. We do not think it does.
Thirdly, the documents relating to the Newman property and
the Metairie Court property list only Michael as the owner of
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011