- 40 -
those properties. While it is true, as respondent argues, that
the fact that “property is in the name of only one spouse and
there is a statement of paraphernality in the act of sale does
not change” the presumption that “all property acquired during
marriage is presumed to belong to the community”, Cheramie v. St.
Pierre, 382 So. 2d 1003, 1006 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1980), it is
also true that “If the spouses are living under a separate
property regime, the presumption does not apply.” 16 Spaht &
Hargrave, sec. 4.7. Because we found, supra, that petitioners
properly recorded their marriage contract, there is no applicable
presumption that petitioners’ property is community property.
Thus, the facts that (1) only Michael’s name was on the documents
relating to petitioners’ residences and (2) the documents of sale
recite that Michael was “separate in property” from his wife
support petitioners’ contention that they were complying with the
terms of their marriage contract.
Fourthly, we note that petitioners filed separate tax
returns for the years in issue, using the filing status “married
filing separate”. Respondent argues that the mere fact that
petitioners filed separate tax returns does not prove that
petitioners were separate in property under Louisiana law. We
agree. This fact, however, is evidence that petitioners viewed
and treated their respective earnings as their separate property.
Page: Previous 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011