Debra D. Ashmore v. Merrell D. Ashmore
This text of Debra D. Ashmore v. Merrell D. Ashmore (Debra D. Ashmore v. Merrell D. Ashmore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
11-538
DEBRA D. ASHMORE
VERSUS
MERRELL D. ASHMORE
**********
APPEAL FROM THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF RAPIDES, NO. 217,396 HONORABLE GEORGE CLARENCE METOYER JR, DISTRICT JUDGE
ELIZABETH A. PICKETT JUDGE
Court composed of Marc T. Amy, Elizabeth A. Pickett, and J. David Painter, Judges.
REVERSED.
J. Phillip Terrell Jr. 1150 Expressway Dr., Ste. 101 Pineville, LA 71360 (318) 561-4340 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE: Debra D. Ashmore Charles O. LaCroix LaCroix, Levy & Barnett, LLC P. O. Box 1105 Alexandria, LA 71309-1105 (318) 443-7615 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT: Merrell D. Ashmore PICKETT, Judge.
Husband appeals judgment which holds that the community property regime
which existed between him and his ex-wife when judgment of separation was
obtained in 1979 “was reestablished in 1985 upon reconciliation of the parties.” For
the following reasons, we reverse.
FACTS
Debra Domingue Ashmore and Merrell Ashmore were married in 1968. The
parties were legally separated by a judgment dated September 7, 1979. The parties
stated in a joint motion to continue, amend, and reset rule that they reconciled “several
months” after the judgment of separation. On June 18, 2004, Ms. Ashmore filed a
petition for divorce. A judgment decreeing a divorce between the parties was granted
May 11, 2007.
After the divorce, when the Ashmores were attempting to partition the
community property they owned, issues arose as to whether the community property
regime that existed prior to the September 7, 1979 judgment of separation was
reestablished after they reconciled. Unable to resolve the issue, the Ashmores
submitted it to the trial court for resolution. The trial court determined that “the
community property regime was in full force and effect from June 29, 1968,” until
September 27, 1979, and that it “was reestablished in 1985 upon reconciliation of the
parties.”
Mr. Ashmore appealed the trial court’s judgment. He contends on appeal that
the community property regime was never reestablished after the 1979 legal
separation.
DISCUSSION
This appeal presents an issue of law which we review de novo. Kevin Assocs.,
L.L.C. v. Crawford, 03-211 (La. 1/30/04), 865 So.2d 34. When Ms. Ashmore filed
her petition for legal separation in 1979, La.Civ.Code art. 155 provided that the community property regime was not reestablished upon reconciliation unless the
parties executed and recorded a notarial act. In 1979, Article 155 was amended, and,
effective January 1, 1980, it provided for reestablishment of the community property
regime by matrimonial agreement. The article was amended again in 1985 to provide
for automatic reestablishment of the community property regime unless the spouses
executed a matrimonial agreement to the contrary prior to their reconciliation. The
1985 amendment was determined to be substantive and, therefore, was not applied
retroactively. LaFleur v. Guillory, 181 So.2d 323 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1965), writ refused,
248 La. 1099, 184 So.2d 24 (1966). See also Conner v. Conner, 515 So.2d 468
(La.App. 1 Cir. 1987); Freeman v. Freeman, 430 So.2d 673 (La.App. 2 Cir.), writ
denied, 435 So.2d 449 (La.1983).
The law governing the reestablishment of the community property regime was
changed again in 1990, when the legislature enacted La.R.S. 9:384. Effective January
1, 1991, Section 384 contained the same language as Article 1551, recognizing the
automatic reestablishment of the community property regime upon reconciliation, but
made it retroactive for “[reconciled] spouses who were judicially separated by a
judgment signed before January 1, 1991, or by a judgment rendered in an action
governed by R.S. 9:381 [actions commenced before January 1, 1991].” Lastly, the
law was changed in 1995 with regard to “spouses who were judicially separated by a
judgment signed before January 1, 1991” to provide that if they reconciled after
September 6, 1985, the community property regime was automatically reestablished
“unless the spouses execute[d] prior to the reconciliation a matrimonial agreement
that the community [property regime would] not be reestablished upon
reconciliation.” La.R.S. 9:384.
The first circuit observed in McCarroll v. McCarroll, 95-1972, p. 7 (La.App. 1
Cir. 6/28/96), 680 So.2d 681, 687, rev’d on other grounds, 96-2700 (La. 10/21/97),
1 Article 155 was repealed upon enactment of La.R.S. 9:384. 2 701 So.2d 1280, that the 1995 limitation on reconciliation set forth in La.RS. 9:384
“coincides with the 1985 amendment to La.Civ.Code art. 155 which initially provided
for the automatic reinstatement of the community [property] regime upon
reconciliation of the parties. Thus, under this act, community property regimes are
automatically reestablished only when the parties reconciled after September 6,
1985.”
The issue in McCarroll was whether the parties’ reconciliation after their 1977
legal separation, but prior to their 1980 divorce, reinstated the community property
regime which existed between them before the legal separation. After thoroughly
reviewing the changes in the law on this issue and the law governing retroactivity of
legislation, the first circuit determined that “[b]ecause the McCarrolls reconciled prior
to September 6, 1985, there [was] no automatic reestablishment of the community
property regime.” Id. at 688. We agree with the first circuit’s reasoning and conclude
that because the Ashmores reconciled prior to 1985, the community property regime
that existed between them before the 1979 judgment of legal separation was not
automatically reestablished. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is reversed.
DISPOSITION
The community of acquets and gains that existed between Debra and Merrell
Ashmore prior to the 1979 legal separation was not thereafter reestablished. All costs
of this appeal are assessed to Debra Ashmore.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Debra D. Ashmore v. Merrell D. Ashmore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/debra-d-ashmore-v-merrell-d-ashmore-lactapp-2011.