Lambert v. Lambert
480 So. 2d 784 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal termination of a community property regime is retroactive to the date of filing of the specific petition upon which the judgment of divorce is ultimately based, not to the date of a prior, superseded petition.
Facts:
- After a month-long separation in October 1972, Vernon and Lottie Lambert reconciled, and Vernon acquired a diamond ring and earrings for Lottie, which she paid for with her own earnings.
- The parties separated again in September 1981.
- Following the 1981 separation, Lottie Lambert continued to operate her beauty shop, which was located in the family residence.
- Vernon Lambert continued to possess and use the family residence after the separation.
- During the marriage, a computer camera was purchased for $9,000, using $6,000 of Lottie's separate funds and $3,000 of community funds.
- During the marriage, Vernon Lambert began receiving Social Security disability benefits for a total disability from a back injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Lottie Lambert initially filed a petition for divorce against Vernon Lambert based on adultery.
- A consent judgment was entered in November 1981 resolving certain issues, including alimony.
- A subsequent judgment, which was reviewed and modified in a prior appeal, ordered Vernon to pay the mortgage and utilities on the family home as part of an alimony scheme.
- On September 27, 1982, Lottie filed a supplemental petition for divorce on the ground of living separate and apart for one year.
- The trial court granted a judgment of divorce on March 10, 1983, based on the supplemental petition.
- Lottie filed a suit for partition of community property on April 25, 1983.
- The trial court entered a judgment of partition on June 8, 1984.
- Vernon Lambert, the defendant-appellant, appealed the partition judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
- Lottie Lambert, the plaintiff-appellee, answered the appeal, raising her own issues for review.
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 community property regime terminate retroactively to the date of filing the initial petition for divorce, even if the divorce is ultimately granted on the grounds alleged in a later, supplemental petition?
Opinions:
Majority - Yelverton, Judge
No. The dissolution of the community is retroactive to the date on which the petition that forms the basis for the divorce judgment was filed. The court reasoned that Louisiana Civil Code article 159's reference to the 'original petition' means the petition setting out the action upon which the judgment is actually based. Here, the divorce was granted on the supplemental petition alleging a one-year separation, not the initial petition alleging adultery. Therefore, the community terminated on September 27, 1982, the filing date of the supplemental petition. The court also held that: 1) jewelry given to the wife upon reconciliation was her separate property as a donation, despite being purchased with community funds; 2) a camera purchased with $6,000 of separate funds and $3,000 of community funds was community property because the community contribution was not 'inconsequential'; and 3) the husband was not entitled to credit for mortgage and utility payments made pursuant to a prior judgment, as they constituted part of an alimony scheme.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the meaning of 'original petition' under Louisiana Civil Code article 159, establishing a critical precedent for determining the termination date of the community property regime when multiple divorce petitions are filed. By tying the retroactive date to the legally successful petition, the court provides a clear, predictable rule that prevents ambiguity and litigation over assets acquired between an initial, unsuccessful filing and a later, successful one. This ruling solidifies the principle that the procedural act which legally effectuates the divorce is what controls the substantive property rights of the spouses, ensuring consistency in partition proceedings.
