No. 82 CA 0991 Precedential Processed

Bailey v. Jones

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed October 11, 1983 · 439 So. 2d 475

Cited by

Ball v. Ball 520 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
Huckabay v. Huckabay 514 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Bailey v. Jones 443 So. 2d 592 La. 1983

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Alpha v. Aucoin 167 So. 835
Benedict v. Holmes 104 La. 528
29 So. 256 not in our corpus
Arceneaux v. Blazek 346 So. 2d 288

Opinion text

SAVOIE, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that if the wife accepts the community, under the interpretation of C.C. art. 2409, she becomes personally liable for one-half of the community debts not previously acquitted. However, I disagree that C.C. art. 2409 gives a right of recovery to the husband if he pays the full amount of the indebtedness after termination and partition of the community. 1 It is my opinion that the wife’s liability, like that of the husband’s, is to the creditor. Alpha v. Au-coin, 167 So. 835 (Orl.La.App.1936). C.C. art. 2409 provides: “It is understood that, in the partition of the effects of the partnership or community of gains, both husband and wife are to be equally liable for their share of the debts contracted during the marriage and not acquitted at the time of its dissolution.” Since C.C. art. 2409 is positive law, clear and free from ambiguity, its letter is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit nor is the court to resort to equity. See C.C. arts. 13 and 21. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent. . Neither Benedict v. Holmes, 104 La. 528 , 29 So. 256 (1900), amended on application for rehearing, nor Arceneaux v. Blazek, 346 So.2d 288 (La.App. 4th Cir.1977), as cited in the majority’s opinion, discussed the application of C.C. art. 2409 in this manner.