Patin v. Patin

Citation: 462 So. 2d 1356Docket: 84-93

Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; January 29, 1985; Louisiana; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves Gayle Younce Patin (plaintiff-appellant) against Connie Patin (defendant-appellee) concerning the partition of community property following their legal separation. The Court of Appeal of Louisiana's Third Circuit reviewed the case on January 30, 1985, after it had been previously decided separately but consolidated on appeal with another case, No. 84-807. The main issues relate to the trial court's handling of community property separation under La. R.S. 9:2801.

Gayle Patin filed for legal separation on January 25, 1982, leading to a judgment that allowed her to use the family home and required her husband to pay community obligations, excluding one $500 annual note. Following a trial on May 11, 1982, a legal separation was granted due to mutual fault, and the husband was ordered to pay specific community debts. The court mandated an inventory of community property to facilitate partition.

Subsequently, a partition trial determined that Mr. Patin would retain the family home, while Mrs. Patin received the community automobile and most other assets. Mrs. Patin appealed this judgment, raising nine alleged errors, while Mr. Patin responded with three errors of his own.

Key points of contention include Mrs. Patin's claim that the trial court erred by not ordering a private sale of the community home, as allowed under La. R.S. 9:2801(4)(d). The court opted instead for a method where the home was allocated to Mr. Patin with Mrs. Patin receiving a credit secured by a vendor's lien, which was deemed within the court's discretion. Additionally, Mrs. Patin contested the trial court's credit to Mr. Patin for her use of the community home for 15 months following the legal separation.

Under Louisiana Civil Code Article 2369, a spouse is required to provide an accounting for community property under their control at the end of a community property regime. Article 2364 stipulates that if community property is utilized to fulfill one spouse's separate obligations, the other spouse is entitled to reimbursement for half the property's value at the time of its use. Following the termination of the community property regime via a judgment of separation, Mrs. Patin's continued use of the community home prevented her from incurring rental costs, which instead benefited her separate estate. Mr. Patin was entitled to reimbursement for half of the property's value, assessed at $750 per month by expert testimony, for the period it was used.

Mrs. Patin challenged the trial court's decision to allow Mr. Patin to recover half of all amounts he paid on the house note and other community debts, arguing that these payments were essentially alimony. Despite her claims, the court maintained that the payments were necessary for the maintenance of the community property and should not be viewed as alimony since the trial court had denied her requests for alimony pendente lite. The court clarified that a spouse ordered to pay community debts to preserve property does not equate to an alimony obligation, and thus Mr. Patin was entitled to reimbursement for half of those debts.

Mrs. Patin also claimed she should receive credit for expenses related to preserving community livestock, which included two horses and a cow and calf acquired during the marriage.

Mrs. Patin presented receipts totaling $1,902 for veterinary expenses and feed related to community livestock. The trial court ruled that while the horses had been informally partitioned, Mrs. Patin would retain ownership of the cow and calf. However, the court found her evidence of actual expenses insufficient to warrant a credit for half the amount claimed, as it was unclear when the horses were partitioned and some expenses related to a third horse not part of the community. Consequently, she did not meet her burden of proof, leading to the denial of her credit claim.

In her fifth assignment of error, Mrs. Patin contended that the trial court incorrectly credited Mr. Patin for the sale of community property items—a television and a welding machine—sold to cover community debts. Since the items were sold to pay these debts before the community was dissolved, the law allows one spouse to dispose of community property to satisfy such obligations. The court ruled that Mr. Patin should not receive credit for these sales since they balanced the community’s liabilities and assets, resulting in a net value that remained unchanged. Thus, the judgment granting Mr. Patin a $450.50 credit was reversed.

In her sixth assignment of error, Mrs. Patin argued against the classification of certain hand tools as Mr. Patin's separate property. Testimony indicated that Mr. Patin owned the tools prior to marriage, which under Louisiana law would classify them as separate property unless proven otherwise. Mrs. Patin's claims that the tools had been given away or replaced were not found credible by the trial judge, whose evaluation of witness credibility is upheld unless manifestly erroneous.

Both parties acknowledged that the hand tools were owned by Mr. Patin prior to the marriage, and the trial court's classification of these tools as his separate property is upheld due to lack of corroborated evidence regarding any transfer. Mrs. Patin's seventh assignment of error, concerning the trial court's failure to address the 9 piece dining room set, is remanded for further proceedings to ascertain its value, any outstanding debt, and proper disposition per La. R.S. 9:2801. Mrs. Patin's eighth assignment, claiming the trial court incorrectly valued community assets as of the separation date rather than the trial date, is dismissed as the expert appraiser's testimony confirmed that the values remained consistent. Regarding the 1978 Ford Bronco awarded to Mrs. Patin, after a wreck during partition proceedings, the vehicle was sold by Domingue Motors due to unpaid fees. The trial court ruled the vehicle as Mr. Patin's separate property; Mrs. Patin's appeal on this matter is considered abandoned due to lack of argument. Mr. Patin’s assignments of error include the trial court's failure to classify the dining room set and encyclopedias, the latter not listed in the descriptive list and thus unreviewable. He also contests the credit for Mrs. Patin’s occupancy of the community home, an issue already decided, and the classification of certain furniture as community property.

Property obtained during marriage is generally presumed to belong to the marital community, as outlined in Louisiana Civil Code Articles 2334 and 2402. Upon marriage dissolution, all possessions held by both spouses are assumed to be community property unless proven otherwise, per Articles 2405 and the case Bruyninckx v. Woodward. The trial judge determined that specific furniture items are community property. Consequently, the judgment allowing Mr. Patin a $450.50 credit from his wife’s share of proceeds from the sale of a television and a welding machine is reversed. The case is remanded to the trial court to: 1) assess the value of a nine-piece dining room set, 2) ascertain any outstanding balance on it, and 3) resolve the matter according to Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:2801. The rest of the trial court's judgment is affirmed, with appeal costs shared equally by both parties. The ruling is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.