Albert v. Albert
1993 WL 429704, 625 So. 2d 765 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a spouse concurs in an act of acquisition containing a declaration that the property is the separate property of the other spouse, the concurring spouse is estopped by deed from later contending the property is community property, unless they prove their concurrence was the result of error, fraud, or duress.
Facts:
- In 1982, Harry Albert, Jr. became the sole owner of all stock in University Park Apartments, Inc. through a donation from his father, making the stock his separate property.
- On October 31, 1984, the corporation sold the apartment complex it owned in exchange for $60,000 cash and a $390,000 promissory note.
- On December 19, 1984, Harry Albert, Jr. and Donna Wesley Albert were married.
- On September 18, 1985, University Park Apartments, Inc. was formally dissolved, with its assets (including the promissory note) belonging to Harry Albert, Jr.
- On May 1, 1987, the purchasers of the apartment complex, the MacDonells, transferred the property back to Harry Albert, Jr. in a 'dation en paiement' in exchange for the cancellation of the $390,000 promissory note.
- Donna Wesley Albert signed both the dation en paiement and a collateral mortgage related to the transaction, both of which contained a 'statement of paraphernality' declaring the apartment complex to be the separate property of Harry Albert, Jr.
Procedural Posture:
- Donna Wesley Albert filed a petition for partition of community property against her former husband, Harry J. Albert, Jr., in a Louisiana trial court.
- The trial court ruled that the University Park Apartments Complex was community property.
- Harry J. Albert, Jr., as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. Donna Wesley Albert is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a spouse's signature on an act of acquisition containing a declaration of paraphernality (that property is separate) estop that spouse from later claiming the property is community property, absent proof that the signature was obtained through error, fraud, or duress?
Opinions:
Majority - Lottinger, Chief Judge
Yes, a spouse's signature on such a document estops them from later claiming the property is community property without proof of error, fraud, or duress. Although property possessed by a spouse during the marriage is presumed to be community property under La.Civ.Code art. 2340, this presumption can be rebutted. Under La.Civ.Code art. 2342, a spouse who concurs in an act declaring property to be separate cannot later controvert that declaration. Donna Albert's signature on two authentic acts acknowledging the separate nature of the apartment complex rebutted the presumption of community. This created an 'estoppel by deed,' shifting the burden of proof to her to demonstrate that her concurrence was invalid due to error, fraud, or duress. Because Donna Albert failed to plead or offer sufficient proof of error, fraud, or duress, she is bound by her declaration. Additionally, the court found the property was separate through real subrogation: the separate stock was converted to a separate note, which was then converted back into the apartment complex, with the asset retaining its separate character throughout these transformations.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the doctrine of 'estoppel by deed' in Louisiana's community property regime, emphasizing the legal weight of a spouse's formal declaration in an authentic act. It clarifies that once a spouse concurs that an asset is separate property, the strong legal presumption that property acquired during marriage is community property is rebutted. The burden then shifts dramatically to the concurring spouse to prove a vice of consent, a difficult standard to meet. This precedent makes it significantly harder for a spouse to challenge the classification of property they have previously acknowledged in writing as separate, thereby promoting certainty in real estate and financial transactions involving married persons.
