Bordelon v. Bordelon
942 So.2d 708, 2006 WL 3093129 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Upon termination of a community property regime, a spouse is entitled to reimbursement for both one-half of the community funds used to improve the other spouse's separate property and one-half of the increase in that property's value attributable to uncompensated common labor, but the recovery for the enhanced value must be offset by the funds expended to prevent double recovery.
Facts:
- Prior to his 1983 marriage to Brenda Bordelon, Gregory P. Bordelon owned a lot as his separate property.
- In 1989, the couple built a house on Gregory's separate lot, which became their family residence.
- The construction was financed with a community loan, from which $38,000 in community funds were used to purchase materials.
- Gregory, a carpenter, performed the majority of the physical labor in constructing the home, with help from friends and family.
- Brenda contributed her labor by purchasing supplies, managing finances, cleaning the construction site, cooking for workers, and raising the couple's children.
- The couple resided in and maintained the home for approximately eleven to twelve years before their divorce in 2001.
Procedural Posture:
- Brenda Bordelon and Gregory P. Bordelon divorced in September 2001.
- During subsequent property partition proceedings in a Louisiana trial court, Brenda Bordelon sought reimbursement for community funds and labor used to build a home on Gregory's separate property.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court denied Brenda's reimbursement claims and awarded her nothing.
- Brenda Bordelon, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit, with Gregory Bordelon as 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:
Upon divorce, is a spouse entitled to be reimbursed for both the community funds spent on and the value of common labor contributed to a home built on the other spouse's separate property?
Opinions:
Majority - Thibodeaux, C.J.
Yes, a spouse is entitled to reimbursement for both community funds and the value added by common labor, but the awards must be calculated to prevent double recovery. Under La.Civ.Code art. 2366, Brenda is entitled to one-half of the $38,000 in community funds used for construction ($19,000). Gregory is not entitled to an offset for mortgage payments he made after the divorce, as La.Civ.Code art. 2365 only applies to payments on community obligations made with separate funds during the marriage. Under La.Civ.Code art. 2368, Brenda is also entitled to reimbursement for the uncompensated common labor of both spouses that increased the value of Gregory's separate property. To avoid double recovery, the value attributed to labor is calculated by subtracting the cost of materials ($38,000) from the total enhanced value of the house ($115,000), leaving $77,000. Brenda is entitled to one-half of this labor value ($38,500). Her total reimbursement is the sum of the funds and labor reimbursements ($19,000 + $38,500 = $57,500), which is then subject to a deduction for her share of the outstanding community loan.
Dissenting - Painter, J.
No, the spouse is not entitled to reimbursement for the value of common labor because the evidence indicates the labor was compensated. La.Civ.Code art. 2368 requires proof that the labor was 'uncompensated.' Brenda Bordelon had the burden of proof, yet her own testimony and evidence, including checks written for labor, suggest Gregory Bordelon was compensated for his work. Since she failed to prove the labor was uncompensated, she is not entitled to reimbursement under Article 2368 and should only recover one-half of the community funds used for improvements ($19,000) under Article 2366.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical methodology for calculating reimbursement claims in Louisiana property partitions where both community funds (Art. 2366) and uncompensated common labor (Art. 2368) contribute to the enhancement of separate property. It clarifies that a spouse can recover under both articles but sets a precedent for a specific formula to prevent double recovery. The court's approach—calculating the labor value by subtracting the fund expenditure from the total enhanced value—provides a clear and equitable framework for future cases, ensuring the non-owner spouse is compensated fairly without receiving a windfall.
Unlock the full brief for Bordelon v. Bordelon