- 20 -
In Downing I we found that the marriage contract had been
dealt with in parish records four times, as follows:
(1) On July 14, 1989, petitioners filed the marriage
contract “for registry” in the conveyance records of
St. Tammany Parish, where petitioners then resided.
(2) On October 8, 1991, Michael, who bought a house in
Jefferson Parish 5 days earlier, filed the act of sale
for this house in the conveyance records of Jefferson
Parish. He attached a copy of the marriage contract to
this filed act of sale.
(3) On March 28, 1995, Michael, who bought another
house in Jefferson Parish 4 days earlier, filed the act
of sale for this house in the conveyance records of
Jefferson Parish. He did not attach a copy of the
marriage contract to this act of sale, but this act of
sale refers to “a marriage contract dated July 12,
1989, and annexed to act recorded as Act No. 91-44488,
in the Parish of Jefferson”.
(4) On February 2, 2000, the marriage contract was
“filed for registry” in the conveyance records of
Jefferson Parish.
In their posttrial opening brief, petitioners focused on the
effect of the 1989 St. Tammany Parish filing for registry. They
then stated as follows:
Nevertheless, and in order to quash any possible
lingering doubts, Petitioners have filed separately
their marriage contract in the registry of Jefferson
Parish. If by some chance the first filing in
Jefferson Parish was only good as to the Newman
property because it was only attached to the sale of
that property and was not separately filed, the second
filing (and at least the third such filing overall) of
this marriage contract by itself should remove all
lingering doubts as to any other immovable (or movable)
property located in Jefferson Parish.
In their posttrial answering brief, petitioners took the position
that “the filings in Jefferson Parish were only needed to protect
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011