KIRCHBERG v. FEENSTRA Et Al.
1981 U.S. LEXIS 82, 67 L. Ed. 2d 428, 450 U.S. 455 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that grants a husband the unilateral right to dispose of jointly owned community property without his wife's consent is a gender-based classification that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- In 1974, Joan Feenstra filed a criminal complaint against her husband, Harold Feenstra, for molesting their daughter.
- While incarcerated, Harold Feenstra hired attorney Karl Kirchberg and signed a $3,000 promissory note for legal services.
- To secure the note, Harold Feenstra executed a mortgage on the home he jointly owned with his wife, Joan Feenstra.
- A Louisiana statute, Article 2404, designated the husband as 'head and master' of community property, allowing him to mortgage the property without his wife's knowledge or consent.
- Joan Feenstra was unaware of the mortgage until 1976, when Kirchberg threatened to foreclose on the home to collect the outstanding debt.
- After Joan Feenstra refused to pay, Kirchberg initiated foreclosure proceedings to seize and sell the home.
Procedural Posture:
- Karl Kirchberg filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, seeking a declaratory judgment against Joan Feenstra.
- Joan Feenstra filed a counterclaim challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's 'head and master' statute, Article 2404.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the State of Louisiana, upholding the statute.
- Joan Feenstra appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that Article 2404 violated the Equal Protection Clause, but limited its ruling to prospective application.
- Karl Kirchberg, the appellant, appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 state law that gives a husband, as 'head and master' of the marital community, the unilateral right to dispose of jointly owned property without his wife's consent violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Marshall
Yes. A state law that grants a husband exclusive control over the disposition of community property embodies an express gender-based discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court found that Louisiana's 'head and master' law, Article 2404, clearly discriminated on the basis of gender. Under the established standard for gender-based classifications, the burden was on the state to show that the provision was substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental objective. The state's only proffered justification—that one spouse must be designated as the manager of the community—was insufficient. The court reasoned that the state failed to show why the mandatory designation of the husband as manager was necessary to further that interest. The argument that Mrs. Feenstra could have taken steps to prevent this outcome does not redeem an unconstitutionally discriminatory law, as the 'absence of an insurmountable barrier' is not a defense for such a statute. Since no 'exceedingly persuasive justification' for the classification was offered, the statute is unconstitutional.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
Yes. The Louisiana statute violated the Equal Protection Clause because men and women were similarly situated with respect to the management and disposition of community property, yet the law treated them differently by allowing only husbands to execute mortgages on jointly owned real estate without spousal consent. Justice Stewart agreed with the result and concurred that the Court of Appeals' judgment applied to the specific mortgage in this case. He also emphasized that the appellate court's prospective application meant that no other mortgages executed before the date of that court's decision would be invalidated by the ruling.
Analysis:
This case solidified the application of intermediate scrutiny to gender-based classifications in the context of property rights within a marriage. By striking down Louisiana's archaic 'head and master' law, the Court rejected administrative convenience as a sufficient justification for explicit gender discrimination. The decision effectively invalidated similar laws nationwide and affirmed that stereotypes about gender roles have no place in statutes governing marital property. It represents a significant step in the movement toward legal equality between spouses, mandating that states adopt gender-neutral approaches to the management of community property.
