Lexplug logoLexplug

Deshotels v. Deshotels

Louisiana Court of Appeal
150 So. 3d 541, 2014 La. App. LEXIS 2674, 13 La.App. 3 Cir. 1406 (2014)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A pre-nuptial agreement that fails to meet statutory form requirements cannot be validated as a natural obligation solely through a spouse's subsequent admission of signature, as matrimonial agreements require strict adherence to formalities to be enforceable.


Facts:

  • In March 1986, prior to their marriage, Alverda and Seldon Deshotels executed a 'marriage agreement' at Alverda's place of business intending to keep their property separate.
  • At the time Alverda signed the document, no notary was present.
  • The copy retained by Alverda left the spaces for witness names, dates, and the notary's signature blank.
  • A different version of the agreement was later recorded in parish records, containing filled-in dates and a notary signature, though the date area appeared altered with white-out.
  • The parties married in 1986.
  • Alverda filed for divorce in 2010.
  • During subsequent proceedings, Alverda admitted under oath that she signed the document and understood that its purpose was for the parties to remain separate in their property.
  • Alverda testified she believed the agreement only applied to pre-marital property, not property acquired during the marriage.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ms. Deshotels filed a petition for divorce and subsequently a petition for partition of community property in the trial court.
  • Dr. Deshotels contested the partition, arguing a separate property regime existed based on the recorded marriage agreement.
  • The trial court held a hearing to determine the validity of the agreement.
  • The trial court ruled the agreement was invalid for lack of form but held it was enforceable as a 'natural obligation' due to the wife's court admission.
  • The trial court dismissed Ms. Deshotels' petition for partition of community property.
  • Ms. Deshotels appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana.

Locked

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 admission in court that she signed a formally defective pre-nuptial agreement create a natural obligation that renders the void agreement judicially enforceable?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Amy

No, a spouse's admission that she signed a defective agreement does not create a natural obligation sufficient to override the strict form requirements of matrimonial agreements. The court reasoned that Louisiana law (La.Civ.Code art. 2329 and 2331) imposes strict formal requirements on matrimonial agreements—specifically that they be authentic acts or acts under private signature duly acknowledged—to protect spouses from inadvertently waiving community property rights. The court found that these requirements are construed stricti juris. Although the trial court attempted to apply the doctrine of 'natural obligations' (where a moral duty becomes enforceable upon recognition), the appellate court held that Alverda's testimony did not prove she intended to be bound by a natural obligation. Furthermore, the court noted that because matrimonial agreements are onerous contracts requiring specific forms, a natural obligation generally cannot substitute for the missing statutory formalities. The admission of signature could not 'retroactively resurrect' the void agreement.



Analysis:

This case reinforces the supremacy of statutory formalities in family law over equitable doctrines like natural obligations. By ruling that a 'natural obligation' cannot cure a formally defective pre-nuptial agreement, the court upholds the policy protection of the community property regime. It signals to future litigants that the 'stricti juris' nature of matrimonial agreements is absolute; parties cannot bypass the requirement of a notary and witnesses simply by later admitting they signed the paper. It limits the scope of Civil Code Article 1760 (Natural Obligations), preventing it from becoming a loophole for procedurally botched marriage contracts.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Deshotels v. Deshotels (2014)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"