Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fazzio v. Krieger, 76 So. 2d 713.

32 citing documents.

Lauga v. Lauga 537 So. 2d 758 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Alt v. Alt 433 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
1973), the Supreme Court, , (1954), stated that the income of a parent's second spouse, as well as the expenses of the second marriage, must be considered in determining the amount of child support.
Martin v. Brasseaux 422 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Prudhomme v. Prudhomme, supra; Marcus v. Burnett, supra
Bass v. Bass 417 So. 2d 67 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
Coulon v. Coulon 389 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Marcus v. Burnett, supra, note 2; , ; Finley v. Finley, La.App., ; Vaughn v. Vaughn, La.App., .
Dubroc v. Dubroc 388 So. 2d 377 La. 1980
Connell v. Connell 331 So. 2d 4 La. 1976
Hughes v. Whitehead 329 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Phillips v. Phillips 319 So. 2d 566 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1975
Connell v. Connell 316 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Defendant, in arguing the correctness of the trial court's holding that the alimony and support payments which became due during the second community were his separate debts, , (1954); (La.App.
Hastings v. Dinning 314 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
Finley v. Finley 305 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
(1954), the court held that the additional income of the father's second wife is a circumstance which may be considered with regard to the amount of support due by the father to the children of his first marriage.
Kees v. Kees 292 So. 2d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
Charbonnet v. Martin 285 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
Creech v. Capitol MacK, Inc. 287 So. 2d 497 La. 1973
Marcus v. Burnett 282 So. 2d 122 La. 1973
White v. Klein 266 So. 2d 223 La. 1972
(1954) is equivocal in its alternative holding and may be distinguished or it should be limited in application in light of United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Green, 252 La.
Marcus v. Burnett 264 So. 2d 737 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
(1954), our Supreme Court held that the additional income of the father’s second wife is a circumstance which may be considered with regard to the amount of support due by the father to the children of his first marriage.
Fulmer v. Harper 265 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
White v. Klein 263 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Plaintiff relies on the well established principle that alimony and child support are not “debts” within the meaning of Article 2403, but “an obligation or duty imposed by law for which his undivided interest in the second community is responsible.” , (1954).
Lopez v. Lopez 264 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Morace v. Morace, supra; , (1954).
Paxton v. Bramlette 228 So. 2d 161 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Morace v. Morace 220 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Green 201 So. 2d 329 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
Art. 2404, which provide that: “The husband is the head and master of the partnership or community of gains; he administers its effects, disposes of the revenues which they produce, and may alienate them by an onerous title, without the consent and permission of his wife.” , (1954); Hawley v. Crescent City Bank, 26 La.Ann.
Sanders v. Williams 197 So. 2d 635 La. 1967
and Laiche v. Laiche, 237 La.
Commercial Credit Plan, Incorporated v. Perry 186 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
In Fazzio v. Krieger (1954) , , the Supreme Court stated: "[1] In this state it is too well settled to need comment that the salary of a wife who is living with her husband is community property.
Lytell v. Lytell 144 So. 2d 925 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Warren v. YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF SHREVPORT, INC. 136 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
2334 and 2402; , ; Succession of Howell, 177 La.
Fleury v. Fleury 131 So. 2d 355 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
LSA-Civil Code, Art. 2334; , ; Drewett v. Carnahan, La.App., 183 So.
Laiche v. Laiche 111 So. 2d 120 La. 1959
Thigpen v. Thigpen 91 So. 2d 12 La. 1956
Arabie v. Arabie 89 So. 2d 890 La. 1956