Ross v. Ross
857 So. 2d 384, 2003 WL 22399556 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Renewal commissions on insurance policies sold prior to a marriage are classified as community property if their receipt during the marriage requires the effort, skill, or industry of the agent spouse. Income received during a marriage is presumed to be community property, and the burden is on the spouse claiming it is separate property to prove that no community labor was expended to generate it.
Facts:
- Billy Wayne Ross worked as an independent State Farm insurance agent since 1963.
- Ross married Susan Diane Starks on May 29, 1992.
- Shortly after the marriage, on July 10, 1992, Ross filed a declaration of paraphernality, a legal document intending to reserve the fruits of his separate property for his own benefit.
- During the marriage, Ross continued to operate his insurance agency, working three to five days a week for approximately five to ten hours each day.
- The vast majority of the agency's income during the marriage (93-94%) came from renewal commissions on policies that were originally sold before the marriage.
- Ross and his employees provided ongoing services to existing policyholders, which included answering questions, handling claims, sending correspondence, advertising, and entertaining clients.
- The couple divorced in 1997.
Procedural Posture:
- Susan Diane Starks Ross filed a petition to partition community property in a Louisiana state trial court.
- Billy Wayne Ross answered, claiming the renewal commissions were his separate property.
- The trial court ruled that the renewal commissions for policies issued before the marriage were Mr. Ross's separate property and placed the burden on Ms. Starks to prove otherwise for a specific timeframe.
- Ms. Starks, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's ruling in a 2-1 decision.
- Ms. Starks, as applicant, successfully sought a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Louisiana, which granted 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:
Do renewal commissions received by an insurance agent spouse during a marriage, on policies sold before the marriage, constitute community property when the agent exerts effort, skill, or industry to service the policies and maintain the business during the marriage?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, Justice
Yes, renewal commissions received during the marriage on pre-marriage policies constitute community property when the agent exerts effort, skill, or industry. The court reasoned that income received during a marriage is presumed to be community property under La. C.C. art. 2340, and the burden was on Mr. Ross to rebut this presumption, which he failed to do. The evidence demonstrated that Mr. Ross worked substantial hours servicing existing clients, answering calls, handling claims, and managing his agency to ensure policyholders renewed. This activity constitutes the "effort, skill, or industry" required by La. C.C. art. 2338 to classify property as community. While the policies themselves can be considered "juridical acts" capable of producing passive "civil fruits," the income here was not passive but was actively earned through Mr. Ross's significant labor during the marriage.
Concurring - Knoll, Justice
Concurs in the result only. The renewal commissions are community property because they are simply compensation for Mr. Ross's labor during the marriage, not because they are "civil fruits" resulting from community effort. The majority's analysis classifying the commissions as potential "civil fruits" is flawed because Mr. Ross does not have an ownership interest in the underlying insurance policies; the policies are contracts between State Farm and its customers. Without ownership of the principal "thing," the resulting income cannot be a "fruit" of that thing; it is simply earnings, which are community property when acquired through labor during the marriage.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the classification of insurance renewal commissions in community property states, favoring an "earnings" characterization over a "passive fruits" one when ongoing labor is involved. It reinforces the strong presumption that property acquired through labor during a marriage is community property. The ruling firmly places the burden of proof on the spouse attempting to classify such income as separate property, preventing spouses from using pre-marital assets combined with marital labor to shield income from the community estate. This precedent is significant for any business owner whose income during marriage is derived from a client base established prior to the marriage.
