Gisleson v. Deputy
2013 La.App. 4 Cir. 0150, 122 So.3d 1089, 2013 WL 4017390 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana law, student loan debt incurred by a spouse prior to a marriage is a separate obligation, and if community funds are used to satisfy that debt, the other spouse is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the community funds used upon termination of the marriage.
Facts:
- Before his marriage, Steven Russell Deputy borrowed money via student loans to attend medical school.
- Susan Marie Gisleson and Dr. Deputy married in June 1992.
- During their 19-year marriage, community funds totaling $171,000 were used to repay Dr. Deputy's pre-marital student loans.
- Ms. Gisleson also incurred a student loan during the marriage to complete her college degree.
- In 2009, Dr. Deputy was diagnosed with cancer and underwent treatment.
- Upon Dr. Deputy's return from treatment in 2010, Ms. Gisleson informed him she wanted to separate and moved out of the marital home on July 1, 2010.
- Ms. Gisleson testified she left due to an incident of physical abuse by Dr. Deputy and her ongoing fear that it would happen again.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Marie Gisleson filed for divorce from Steven Russell Deputy in a Louisiana trial court.
- In her petition, Ms. Gisleson sought, among other things, a division of community property and reimbursement for community funds used to pay off Dr. Deputy's pre-marital student loans.
- Following a trial, the trial court held that the student loan debt was Dr. Deputy's separate obligation and awarded Ms. Gisleson reimbursement of $85,500, representing one-half of the community funds used for repayment.
- The trial court also made rulings regarding spousal support and the classification of Ms. Gisleson's own student loan.
- Dr. Deputy, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, with Ms. Gisleson 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:
Does the use of community funds to repay a spouse's separate student loan debt, incurred before the marriage, entitle the other spouse to reimbursement for one-half of those funds upon termination of the community property regime?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Max N. Tobias, Jr.
Yes. If community property has been used to satisfy a spouse's separate obligation, the other spouse is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the amount used. Louisiana Civil Code article 2363 defines a separate obligation as one incurred by a spouse prior to the establishment of the community property regime. The court found that Dr. Deputy's student loans, incurred before the marriage, were unambiguously his separate obligation. The fact that his resulting medical education and increased earning power benefited the community does not convert the separate debt into a community debt. Citing La. C.C. art. 2364 and its own precedent in Katner v. Katner, the court affirmed that Ms. Gisleson was entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the community funds used to pay Dr. Deputy's separate debt. The court also rejected Dr. Deputy's argument that his increased earning power was a 'civil fruit' of his education, which would make the interest paid on the loans a community obligation, finding no support for this interpretation in law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict application of Louisiana's community property statutes regarding the classification and satisfaction of debts. It clarifies that the indirect 'benefit' to the community from an asset acquired via separate debt (like a professional degree) does not alter the debt's character or negate the statutory right to reimbursement. The ruling solidifies the principle that pre-marital student loans remain separate obligations, preventing spouses from arguing for an equitable exception based on the lifestyle the degree afforded the couple. This provides a clear, bright-line rule for family law practitioners in dividing assets and liabilities upon divorce.
Unlock the full brief for Gisleson v. Deputy