Danielle Deon Dickerson Acurio v. Dr. Michael Thomas Acurio
2017 WL 1787747, 2017 La. LEXIS 952, 224 So. 3d 935 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana Civil Code article 2331, a matrimonial agreement executed as an act under private signature is invalid unless the spouses' signatures are duly acknowledged prior to the marriage. The pre-marriage acknowledgment is a mandatory form requirement, not merely an evidentiary matter that can be satisfied later.
Facts:
- Danielle Deon Dickerson Acurio Cage and Dr. Michael Thomas Acurio were previously married and divorced.
- On January 25, 2002, four days before their second marriage to each other, the parties executed a document titled 'Prenuptial Agreement.'
- The document was signed by both parties before one witness and a notary.
- At the time of signing, the agreement was not executed by authentic act and did not contain a formal acknowledgment of either party's signature.
- The parties married for the second time on January 29, 2002.
- Divorce proceedings for the second marriage began in 2009.
Procedural Posture:
- During divorce proceedings, Danielle Acurio ('the plaintiff') filed a Motion in Limine in the district court seeking to exclude the parties' 2002 prenuptial agreement as invalid.
- The district court granted the plaintiff's motion, ruling the agreement null and void because it was not acknowledged prior to the marriage.
- Dr. Michael Acurio ('the defendant') appealed the district court's ruling to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the district court, holding that the agreement was valid and enforceable because the law does not require acknowledgment to occur before the marriage.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's writ application to resolve a split among the state's appellate courts on this issue.
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 matrimonial agreement executed as an act under private signature fail to comply with the form requirements of La. Civ. Code art. 2331 if the parties' signatures are not duly acknowledged prior to the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Clark, J.
Yes. A matrimonial agreement signed before marriage but not duly acknowledged until after the marriage is invalid for failure to meet the required form. Reading La. Civ. Code art. 2331 (form requirements) in conjunction with art. 2329 (requiring court approval for post-nuptial agreements) reveals a legislative intent to make it onerous to opt out of the default community property regime. The law provides two equally formal pre-nuptial options: an authentic act or an act under private signature duly acknowledged. Allowing acknowledgment to occur at any time would render the second option significantly less stringent than the first, contrary to the legislative purpose of ensuring parties give due consideration before waiving community property rights. Therefore, the acknowledgment is not just a matter of proof but an essential element of form that must be completed before the marriage for the agreement to have legal effect.
Dissenting - Weimer, J.
No. A matrimonial agreement executed prior to marriage is valid even if the signatures are acknowledged after the marriage. La. C.C. art. 2331 contains no temporal requirement for acknowledgment. The general rules on obligations, specifically art. 1836, define acknowledgment as a matter of proof, not form, and impose no time limit. The majority's reliance on art. 2329 is misplaced, as that article's higher burden applies to modifying a regime during marriage, not establishing one before. The legislature grants spouses freedom of contract in art. 2328, and the purpose of acknowledgment is simply evidentiary—to confirm the signatures' authenticity, which can be done at any time, including via a judicial admission during litigation, as occurred here.
Dissenting - Hughes, J.
No. The matrimonial agreement should be considered valid because the acknowledgment is a form of proof that does not affect the substance of the contract. The contract was complete between the parties when they signed it before the marriage, and they honored it for many years. The law does not specify a time requirement for when an acknowledgment must occur, only that it is acknowledged. Invalidating a long-standing agreement on a timing technicality not explicitly found in the law is improper, especially when the plaintiff acknowledged her signature under oath.
Analysis:
This decision resolves a significant circuit split in Louisiana, establishing a bright-line rule that the formal acknowledgment of signatures on a private prenuptial agreement must occur before the marriage. By elevating acknowledgment from an evidentiary matter to a mandatory pre-nuptial formality, the court strengthens the legal presumption of the community property regime and makes it more difficult for parties to contract around it. This ruling emphasizes the need for strict compliance with all statutory formalities in matrimonial agreements, requiring practitioners to ensure every step, including acknowledgment, is completed before the wedding to avoid future invalidation.
