Mary McCoy Sanders v. Eric Dwain Sanders

Judgment rendered May 20, 2020.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 53,454-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

MARY MCCOY SANDERS Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

ERIC DWAIN SANDERS Defendant-Appellee

*****

Appealed from the
Fifth Judicial District Court for the
Parish of West Carroll, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 30,001

Honorable Stephen G. Dean, Judge

*****

S. DOUGLAS BUSARI & ASSOCIATES, LLC Counsel for Appellant
By: S. Douglas Busari

CAMPBELL HOUSE & COMPANY Counsel for Appellee
By: Wade L. House

*****

Before WILLIAMS, MOORE, and THOMPSON, JJ.

THOMPSON, J.

This reimbursement claim arises from a community property dispute

which originates in the Fifth Judicial District Court, West Carroll Parish,

Louisiana. The Plaintiff wife appeals the trial court’s judgment denying her

reimbursement claim for the alleged use of community funds to enhance the

value of the separate property of her former husband and for her

uncompensated labor in the construction of the residence on that property.

For the following reasons, we reverse and remand.

FACTS

Mary McCoy Sanders (“Mary”) and Eric Dwain Sanders (“Eric”)

were divorced on December 12, 2013, and a petition to partition community

property was filed by Mary on February 5, 2014. The partition matter was

referred to a hearing officer by the district court. On July 6, 2018, a hearing

officer report, focused only on the matrimonial residence, addressed part of

the community property partition request. The hearing officer determined

Mary was entitled to reimbursement in some yet undetermined amount

based on the facts that when the house burned the insurance proceeds were

issued to both Eric and Mary, and that Mary contributed her labor and

efforts and possibly additional community funds to rebuild the home. The

hearing officer further recommended the property be appraised, at Mary’s

expense, to help determine the value of Mary’s efforts and to quantify her

reimbursement claim.

On July 10, 2018, Mary filed an objection to the recommendations of

the hearing officer. She stated that the recommendation is contrary to law

and evidence, and it is not supported by the facts presented. Additionally,

she objected to the fact that the hearing officer only addressed the house in

the report and no other items of community property listed in the detailed

descriptive lists. On July 11, 2018, Eric also filed an objection to the

recommendations of the hearing officer. He objected to the order of

appraisal on the house.

After a pretrial conference on December 10, 2019, on the objections

to the hearing officer’s recommendation, the district court ordered

memoranda and a reply memorandum be filed within certain deadlines, after

which the district court would then take the matter under advisement. There

was no evidence or testimony presented at the December 10, 2018 hearing or

included in the subsequent memoranda. The parties timely filed their

respective memos and on August 12, 2019, the district court issued a

judgment with reasons. The district court rejected the hearing officer’s

recommendations and instead held:

1) Plaintiff has failed to prove that any community funds were used in
the acquisition, use, improvement, or benefit of the subject separate
property of the defendant;

2) Plaintiff has failed to prove that this subject separate property of the
defendant has increased in value as a result of the undercompensated
or uncompensated labor or industry of the plaintiff during the
existence of the matrimonial regime; and

3) No appraisal need be performed on the subject separate property, as a
result of the findings above.

On January 27, 2020, Mary filed the instant appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Whether the property at issue in a divorce proceeding is community or

separate property is a factual issue, which is subject to the manifest error

standard of review. Boone v. Boone, 39,544 (La. App. 2 Cir. 04/06/05), 899

So. 2d 823.
2

DISCUSSION

In her appeal, Mary asserts two assignments of error:

1. The trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff is due no
reimbursement when community funds and plaintiff’s
uncompensated labor were used in constructing the matrimonial
domicile on the land belonging to defendant on two (2) separate
occasions.

2. The trial court erred in failing to address or partition all other
properties belonging to the community despite plaintiff’s filing an
objection to the hearing officer’s recommendation which omitted
same.

In her first assignment of error, Mary argues that the trial court erred

in ruling she is due no reimbursement when community funds and her

uncompensated labor were used in constructing the matrimonial domicile on

land belonging to Eric. Louisiana Civil Code article 2366 states:

If community property has been used during the existence of
the community property regime or former community property
has been used thereafter for the acquisition, use, improvement,
or benefit of the separate property of a spouse, the other spouse
is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the amount or value
that the community property had at the time it was used.

Buildings, other constructions permanently attached to the
ground, and plantings made on the separate property of a
spouse with community property belong to the owner of the
ground. The other spouse is entitled to reimbursement for one-
half of the amount or value that the community property had at
the time it was used.

The district court held that Mary failed to prove that community funds

were used to improve Eric’s separate parcel of land. The district court

neither heard testimony nor received evidence in support of arguments on

either side of the issue. Mary would be entitled to claim reimbursement for

one-half of any community funds used to build the original or rebuild the

marital domicile after the fire under Article 2366. Brehm v. Brehm, 00-201

(La. App. 5 Cir. 06/27/00), 762 So. 2d 1259, writ denied, 00-2286 (La.

3

10/27/00), 772 So. 2d 657. Eric, in the pleadings, disputes any community

funds were used to build the original residence or in its reconstruction.

When the original marital domicile perished in a fire, a dispute arose

between the parties with regard to the funds paid out by the insurance

company. The insurance company issued a check payable to both Mary and

Eric and these funds were used to rebuild the marital domicile on the same

parcel of Eric’s separate property. Eric argues that, according to the

principles of real subrogation, the insurance proceeds that were paid to

compensate for the destruction of the original marital domicile are also his

separate property. Mary asserts, contrary to Eric’s argument, that the check

from the insurance company was made payable to both Mary and Eric.

Mary argues those insurance funds were community funds which were used

to rebuild the residence, and therefore she is entitled to recover her interest

in those funds as they were used to enhance Eric’s separate property.

Mary also contends that she is owed reimbursement for her

uncompensated labor in rebuilding the residence as her efforts increased the

value of Eric’s separate property. According to Louisiana Civil Code article

2368, if the separate property of a spouse has increased in value as a result

of the uncompensated common labor or industry of the spouses, the other

spouse is entitled to be reimbursed from the spouse whose property has

increased in value in the amount of one-half of the increase attributed to the

common labor. A claimant spouse has the burden to prove: (1) the property

is separate; (2) the property increased in value; and (3) the increased value is

based on the uncompensated labor of the spouses. Brehm, supra.

Considering, as it appears from the record, there was no testimony taken or

evidence adduced on this issue, we disagree with the district court’s finding
4

that Mary is entitled to no reimbursement for her uncompensated or

undercompensated labor. The appraisal recommended by the hearing officer

may be a good place to start to determine the value of the current home as

compared to the value utilized by the insurance company for the loss of the

original home to fire. Mary argues her labor as well as additional

community funds above the insurance proceeds were instrumental in

rebuilding the residence and achieving its current enhanced value.

Testimony and evidence are required to make such a determination.

In her second assignment of error, Mary contends that the trial court

erred in failing to partition the remaining items of community property.

Although there are references in the pleading to sworn detailed descriptive

lists, there are no such lists filed in the record before this court. Whether

there remain unpartitioned community assets or not is not something this

court can determine from the record.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the district court’s judgment is reversed

and the case remanded for an evidentiary hearing at which time the district

court can consider the detailed descriptive lists, testimony and evidence of

the parties, and establish a value, if any, of any community funds used to

rebuild the separate property residence of Eric, and to fix a value on any

uncompensated labor of Mary devoted to the construction of the residence

and partition the entirety of the community.

Costs are assessed to Defendant, Eric Sanders.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

5