Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Patin v. Patin, 462 So. 2d 1356.

30 citing documents.

Amos Joseph Crader, Jr. v. Alison Faye Crader La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
Amos argues, while the trial court in its written reasons discussed the community 401(k) and liabilities, “they are not mentioned at all in the actual Judgment on the partition of community property.” (La.App.
Ponson v. Ponson 241 So. 3d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
See Patin v. Patin , , 1358 (La.
Hansel v. Hansel 802 So. 2d 875 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
Nichols v. Nichols 671 So. 2d 1069 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
In Re Succession of Caraway 639 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Jensen v. Jensen 630 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Barr v. Barr 613 So. 2d 1159 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
The court relied on its earlier *1163 decision, (La.App.
Fastabend v. Fastabend 606 So. 2d 794 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Jones v. Jones 605 So. 2d 689 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Herrell v. Herrell 594 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Williams v. Williams 590 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
In a similar case this court denied the wife's claim that her former husband's mortgage payments were alimony and ruled that such payments were subject to reimbursement, (La.App.
Goins v. Goins 580 So. 2d 477 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Vice v. Vice 567 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Allbritton v. Allbritton 561 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Freeman v. Freeman 552 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Wochomurka v. Wochomurka 552 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
In determining the amounts due between the parties, the trial court permitted an offset to Mr. Wochomurka for the occupancy of the home by his wife, (La.App.
Barbin v. Barbin 546 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Magnon v. Leger 539 So. 2d 1305 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Dupre v. Dupre 522 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
Bolden v. Bolden 524 So. 2d 10 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
In determining the amounts due between the spouses, the trial court permitted an offset or credit for the occupancy of the home by each spouse during the pendency of the partition, (La.App.
Burrell v. Burrell 518 So. 2d 569 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Mara v. Mara 513 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
Mrs. Mara contends that the trial judge was correct since the Davezac case, supra, was decided subsequent to the date of this judgment, and, therefore, writ den.
Williams v. Williams 509 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Pitre v. Pitre 501 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
App. 3rd Cir.1986), writ denied, (La.App.
Derouen v. Derouen 496 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
Lovell v. Lovell 490 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Godeaux v. Godeaux 488 So. 2d 434 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
See Patín v. Patín, (La.App.
Lambert v. Lambert 480 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Patin v. Patin 466 So. 2d 470 La. 1985
Prior reports: La.App., ; ; .
Patin v. Patin 462 So. 2d 1362 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985