Reynolds v. Reynolds
388 So. 2d 1135 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Income distributed to a spouse-beneficiary from a trust constituting separate property is a civil fruit that falls into the community of acquets and gains unless the spouse files a statutory declaration to reserve it as separate. Undistributed income, however, remains the property of the trust and does not enter the community.
Facts:
- In 1957, Minnie Smith Sledge's will established a spendthrift trust for her grandchildren, with a 640-acre farm as the trust corpus.
- C. H. Brookshire was named trustee with full power to manage, control, alienate, and encumber the trust property.
- Upon Sledge's death in 1959, the trust became effective.
- On July 9, 1966, Margaret Susan Romero, a beneficiary of the trust, married Glynn W. Reynolds.
- During the marriage, Margaret received distributions from the trust income totaling $11,913.85, which she deposited into a checking account under her exclusive control.
- Margaret spent $9,660.26 from this account on clothing for herself and her children, and for other household expenses.
- Margaret never executed or recorded an affidavit of paraphernality under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2386 to declare the fruits of her separate property for her own use.
- The community of acquets and gains between Margaret and Glynn was dissolved by judicial separation on February 6, 1970, at which time a balance of $555.18 remained from the distributed trust income, and $11,434.80 of her share of income remained undistributed in the trust.
Procedural Posture:
- Glynn Reynolds and Margaret Reynolds disputed the community or separate nature of trust income in the trial court during their property settlement.
- The trial court, a Louisiana district court, ruled that both the distributed and undistributed trust income belonged to the wife's separate estate and denied her claim for reimbursement.
- The husband, Glynn Reynolds, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal; the wife, Margaret Reynolds, as appellee, also appealed the denial of her reimbursement claim.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the wife's beneficial interest was her separate property and that both the distributed and undistributed income were fruits that fell into the community.
- The wife, Margaret Reynolds, as applicant, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Louisiana to review the appellate court's decision.
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 income generated by a spendthrift trust, where a wife's beneficial interest was acquired before marriage, fall into the community of acquets and gains if she has not filed a statutory declaration to reserve the fruits of her separate property?
Opinions:
Majority - Watson, J. (on rehearing)
Yes, as to the distributed income; No, as to the undistributed income. Income distributed from a trust in which a spouse has a separate property interest is a civil fruit of that interest and falls into the community, but undistributed income remains the property of the trust. While the trustee holds legal title to the trust corpus, the wife's beneficial interest is an incorporeal right constituting her separate, paraphernal property. The revenues, once distributed from that incorporeal right, are classified as civil fruits. Under former Civil Code Article 2386, fruits of a wife's paraphernal property fall into the community by default unless she files a specific instrument to reserve them. Because Margaret Reynolds did not file such an instrument, the distributed income became community property. Conversely, the undistributed income remained under the control and dominion of the trustee, had not accrued to the wife, and therefore did not fall into the community.
Dissenting - Dixon, C.J. (on rehearing)
No. Neither the distributed nor the undistributed income from the trust should be considered community property. The trust agreement conferred two independent interests: a future right to the corpus and a present right to receive income for support. The distributed income is not a 'fruit' of the wife's separate property interest; rather, it is the materialization of a gift mortis causa from the settlor (her grandmother). As such, the distributed funds themselves are a donation and should be classified as the wife's separate property, not as fruits that would fall into the community. The undistributed income clearly remains trust property.
Dissenting - Dennis, J. (original hearing)
Yes. Both the distributed and undistributed income are community property. The wife's beneficial interest in the trust corpus constitutes a form of separate property. The income generated from that property, whether paid out or not, represents fruits of her separate property. Under the plain language of Article 2386, these fruits fall into the community, regardless of who administers the property (in this case, the trustee), unless the wife executes the required affidavit. The statute provides an exclusive method for a wife to preserve fruits as separate, and her failure to do so is dispositive.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical clarification on the intersection of Louisiana trust law and its community property regime. It establishes a bright-line rule distinguishing between distributed and undistributed income from a separate property trust for community property classification. The decision emphasizes that a beneficiary's interest, while not full ownership of the corpus, is a distinct property right capable of producing 'fruits.' This creates a significant precedent, placing an affirmative duty on a beneficiary-spouse to execute a statutory declaration if they wish to keep trust distributions separate, thereby creating a potential trap for those unaware of this default classification.
