Dodd v. Solomon

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Dodd v. Solomon

393 So. 2d 821, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 3440

CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal

DecidedJanuary 13, 1981

DocketNo. 14395

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 393 So. 2d 821 (Dodd v. Solomon) 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.

Bluebook

Dodd v. Solomon, 393 So. 2d 821, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 3440 (La. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MARVIN, Judge.

The demands of a concubine, seeking to be declared owner of one-half of certain movable assets acquired by her paramour during their 16-year relationship, were dismissed on an exception of no cause of action. She appeals.

The concubine alleged that the relationship constituted a partnership and that she contributed from her property and earnings at least one half of the funds used by the paramour to acquire the assets which included more than $70,000 in cash deposits. For the purpose of considering the exception, these allegations must be taken as true. Whether or not she can meet the burden of proof can be determined only upon the trial on the merits. See Keller v. Keller, 220 So.2d 745, 750 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1969) and other cases cited in Lorio, “Concubinage and its Alternatives”, 26 Loy.L.R. 1 (1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED at the cost of defendant-exceptor.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARVIN, Judge.

The demands of a concubine, seeking to be declared owner of one-half of certain movable assets acquired by her paramour during their 16-year relationship, were dismissed on an exception of no cause of action. She appeals.

The concubine alleged that the relationship constituted a partnership and that she contributed from her property and earnings at least one half of the funds used by the paramour to acquire the assets which included more than $70,000 in cash deposits. For the purpose of considering the exception, these allegations must be taken as true. Whether or not she can meet the burden of proof can be determined only upon the trial on the merits. See Keller v. Keller, 220 So.2d 745, 750 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1969) and other cases cited in Lorio, “Concubinage and its Alternatives”, 26 Loy.L.R. 1 (1980).

REVERSED AND REMANDED at the cost of defendant-exceptor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

393 So. 2d 821, 1981 La. App. LEXIS 3440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dodd-v-solomon-lactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack