Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Saunier v. Saunier, 47 So. 2d 19.

13 citing documents.

Marilyn Williams Hedlesky v. Steven Hedlesky La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
The trial court over[-]extended and misinterpreted the 1950 case of [], because [Saunier] allowed only a partial offset of the portion of the support (combined spousal and child support) to be taken or offset by the obligor spouse; [Saunier] did not authorize the taking of 100% of the child support to offset a community pr
Hedlesky v. Hedlesky 166 So. 3d 1221 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
The trial court over[-]extended and misinterpreted the 1950 case of [ , (1950)], because [Saunier ] allowed only a partial offset of the portion of the support (combined spousal and child support) to be taken or offset by the obligor spouse; [Saunier ] did not authorize the taking of 100% of the child support to offset a community property claim.
Massie v. Massie 436 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Investor Inns, Inc. v. Wallace 408 So. 2d 978 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Saslow-Dental Supplies v. Dongieux 398 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Hartley v. Hartley 349 So. 2d 1258 La. 1977
Bordelon v. Bordelon 177 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
Cormier v. Billeaudeau 159 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
in which the Court states as follows: “Mrs. Saunier in consideration of her receiving the sum of $5,000 cash and certain real estate, and of Mr. Saunier assuming all of the debts of the community formerly existing between them, transferred, conveyed and delivered unto him, ‘all of her right, title and
Snyder v. Whiteman 152 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
McDaniel v. Rumore 110 So. 2d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
2 Pothier’s Obligations, n. 174.” The foregoing quotation from Carter v. Morse, 8 Mart., O.S., 398 has been approved in Saunier v. Saunier, 1950, , 23 , and Olinde Hardware & Supply Company v. Ramsey, La.App., 1957, .
Olinde Hardware & Supply Co. v. Ramsey 98 So. 2d 835 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
See also Articles 2207, 2208, LSA-C.C., , .
D'Asaro v. Cotonio 73 So. 2d 41 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1954
* * * ” *43 Counsel for appellant insists that this article has no application since the demand of the plaintiff is not for the return of a “thing” of which the estate has been unjustly deprived but is for the return of money which has been withheld, , , the Supreme Court held that that article had no application to the withholding of money.
Babin v. Babin 55 So. 2d 888 La. 1951
It is not the contention of the defendant that the item so refunded is not an asset of the former community, but he claims (1) , , he, the husband, became vested with this refund under the compromise settlement of April 28, 1950, above referred to, wherein the wife re *126 ceived $4,713.75 in cash or its equivalent and the defendant received $1,624.19 in cash or its equivalent (the wife, in addition, relinquished her claim that ce