Gathright v. Smith
368 So.2d 679 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The ownership of funds derived from the sale of real property is determined by the law of the situs where that property was located. When property in a joint tenancy jurisdiction is sold, the proceeds retain their character as jointly owned, and this provides strict and conclusive proof of contribution when those funds are used to purchase property in Louisiana, even by a bad-faith putative spouse.
Facts:
- In 1920, Clara Pearl Breland married Alexander F. Smith, with whom she had two children, Talmadge Smith and Margie Lawrence.
- Clara separated from Smith and, in 1930, purported to marry John Turner, with whom she lived until they separated around 1934.
- On August 12, 1942, Clara married Louie A. Gathright without having divorced either of her previous husbands, both of whom were still alive.
- Clara and Gathright lived together as husband and wife, moving to California in 1955.
- While in California, the couple acquired two parcels of real property, with the deeds titling the property to them as 'joint tenants'.
- In late 1967 and early 1968, they sold the California properties.
- Using the proceeds from the California property sales, they purchased four pieces of property in Louisiana.
- Clara died in 1973, after which Gathright discovered that her prior marriages to Smith and Turner were undissolved at the time of their 1942 wedding.
Procedural Posture:
- Louie Gathright filed a suit for declaratory judgment against Margie Smith Lawrence and Talmadge A. Smith in a Louisiana trial court.
- The trial court declared the marriage null, found Clara Smith was in bad faith, and held that Gathright was the sole owner of all property acquired during the relationship.
- Lawrence and Smith, as defendants-appellants, appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Gathright.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the heirs of a deceased, bad-faith putative spouse satisfy their burden of proving her contribution to the acquisition of Louisiana property by showing the funds used for purchase came from the sale of California real estate that was titled to the couple as 'joint tenants'?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Tate (on rehearing)
Yes. The heirs of the deceased, bad-faith spouse satisfy their burden of proof because the ownership of the funds used to purchase the Louisiana property is determined by California law. Under California law, property acquired in joint tenancy is presumed to be owned one-half by each party individually, regardless of the source of the purchase funds. This presumption can only be rebutted by evidence of a common understanding or agreement to the contrary, which Gathright failed to provide. Therefore, Clara owned one-half of the California property and, consequently, one-half of the proceeds from its sale. Using these proceeds to buy the Louisiana property provides 'strict and conclusive proof' that she contributed half of the funds, entitling her heirs to a one-half ownership interest.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Summers
No. The heirs of the bad-faith spouse do not satisfy their burden of proof. California courts, applying equitable principles in cases involving a fraudulent marriage, would not be bound by the technical form of a joint tenancy deed. Given Clara's bad faith and fraudulent misrepresentation, an equity court would find that she contributed nothing of value and held her interest in a constructive trust for Gathright, the innocent spouse whose funds were used for the purchase. Therefore, Clara had no true ownership interest in the California property or its proceeds, and her heirs cannot prove that she contributed any independent funds to the purchase of the Louisiana property.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent at the intersection of family law, property law, and conflicts of law. It demonstrates that the characterization of assets (in this case, funds) is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where those assets originated. The court's willingness to apply California's strong presumption of joint tenancy ownership gives dispositive weight to the form of title in another state, even when one party to the underlying marriage acted in bad faith. This ruling affects future property disputes involving couples who move assets between states with different marital property regimes, highlighting that foreign property titles can create vested rights that Louisiana courts will recognize.
