Bodenheimer v. Freitag

6 Citing cases

  1. McCarroll v. McCarroll

    701 So. 2d 1280 (La. 1997)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that retroactive assessment of rent to a spouse is inappropriate absent an agreement by the spouses or a court order

    Nichols, 671 So.2d at 1072. This Court previously addressed this issue in a per curiam opinion, Bodenheimer v. Freitag, 94-2573 (La. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 251, but failed to resolve the split in the circuits. Finding the issue now squarely before us, we hold that rental payments may not be retroactively assessed under La.R.S. 9:374(C) unless otherwise agreed by the spouses or ordered by the court.

  2. Yates v. Yates

    375 So. 3d 548 (La. Ct. App. 2023)

    If separate property of a spouse has been used either during the existence of the community or thereafter to satisfy a community obligation, that spouse is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the amount or value the property had at the time it was used. La. C.C. art. 2365; Bodenheimer v. Freitag, 94-2573 (La. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 251.

  3. Bulloch v. Bulloch

    214 So. 3d 930 (La. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Fulco v. Fulco , 50,256 (La.App. 2 Cir. 11/18/15), 183 So.3d 573 ; citing Curtis v. Curtis , 403 So.2d 56 (La. 1981). If separate property of a spouse has been used either during the existence of the community or thereafter to satisfy a community obligation, that spouse is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the amount or value the property had at the time it was used. La. C.C. art. 2365 ; Bodenheimer v. Freitag , 94–2573 (La. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 251. The burden of proof is on the party claiming reimbursement to show that separate funds existed and were used to satisfy the community obligation. Tippen v. Carroll , 47,415 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/20/12), 105 So.3d 100. Where separate funds can be traced with sufficient certainty to establish the separate ownership of the property paid for with those funds, the separate status of such property will be upheld.

  4. Fulco v. Fulco

    183 So. 3d 573 (La. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 8 times

    If separate property of a spouse has been used either during the existence of the community or thereafter to satisfy a community obligation, that spouse is entitled to reimbursement for one-half of the amount or value the property had at the time it was used. La. C.C. art. 2365; Bodenheimer v. Freitag, 94–2573 (La.1/6/95), 651 So.2d 251. The burden of proof is on the party claiming reimbursement to show that separate funds existed and were used to satisfy the community obligation. Tippen v. Carroll, 47,415 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/20/12), 105 So.3d 100; Dupree v. Dupree, supra.

  5. Bodenheimer v. Bodenheimer

    709 So. 2d 306 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    Bodenheimer v. Bodenheimer, 93-CA-823, 93-CA-824 (La.App. 5 Cir. 8/1/94), 641 So.2d 8.Bodenheimer v. Freitag, 94-2573, (La. 1/6/95), 651 So.2d 251. The trial court conducted proceedings in accordance with the directive in the Per Curiam Opinion issued by the Supreme Court; and on October 2, 1996 rendered judgment partitioning the community assets.

  6. Ecroyd v. Ecroyd

    682 So. 2d 788 (La. Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 3 times
    In Ecroyd, the wife was held to have sufficiently traced the disposition of her funds deposited in the community account, where transactions with separate funds took place over a limited three week period, and account transactions involving community property during the period were negligible in comparison with transactions involving the wife's separate funds.

    In Herrell v. Herrell, 594 So.2d 943 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992), we held that the trial court could award rent at the time of the partition where the record was previously silent on rental payments. Hank relies upon the per curiam opinion of Bodenheimer v. Freitag, 94-2573 (La. 1/6/95); 651 So.2d 251, in which the supreme court reversed an award of rent in favor of the wife. Because the facts underlying that decision were not reported by either the appellate court or the supreme court, we find the per curiam opinion to be of little precedential value.