Opinion
2015 CA 0313
02-25-2016
JULIE ROBERT v. HARRY PAUL ROBERT, II
Brian J. Prendergast Baton Rouge, LA Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant Julie Robert Lorraine A. McCormick And Keith Friley Baton Rouge, LA Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee Harry Paul Robert, II
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION On Appeal from the Family Court In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge State of Louisiana
No. F189174 The Honorable Charlene Charlet Day, Judge Presiding Brian J. Prendergast
Baton Rouge, LA Attorney for Plaintiff/Appellant
Julie Robert Lorraine A. McCormick
And
Keith Friley
Baton Rouge, LA Attorneys for Defendant/Appellee
Harry Paul Robert, II BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ. HOLDRIDGE, J.
This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment, which the trial court determined the validity of a pre-marital contract finding that the fruits of the parties' separate property are classified as separate. For the following reasons, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Julie Robert and Harry Robert, II were married on December 31, 2009. Ms. Robert filed a petition for divorce on March 15, 2013. Ms. Robert also filed a petition for declaratory judgment on January 23, 2014. In that pleading, Ms. Robert prayed for a judgment declaring that the fruits of Mr. Robert's separate property be characterized as community property and subject to partition between the parties. Ms. Robert acknowledged that she and her husband executed a valid pre-marital contract the day before their wedding. However, she alleged that the parties did not take the proper steps to reserve the fruits from Mr. Robert's separate property as his separate property according to the terms of their pre-marital contract. She specifically cited paragraph five of the pre-marital contract, which required the parties to "each execute a Declaration of Reservation of Fruits of Separate Property." Ms. Robert argued that neither party executed a valid declaration of reservation of fruits of separate property as required under paragraph five. Mr. Robert countered that the pre-marital contract itself sufficiently acted as a reservation of the fruits from the parties separate property.
After an evidentiary hearing on July 3, 2014, the trial court took this matter under advisement and subsequently issued its written reasons for judgment. The trial court signed a judgment in favor of Mr. Robert on October 2, 2014, holding that the pre-marital contract sufficiently complied with La. C.C. art. 2339 and that the fruits of Mr. Robert's separate property were classified as his separate property. Ms. Robert appeals this judgment, arguing that the trial court's interpretation of the pre-marital contract was erroneous.
On appeal, this Court finds that the trial court's written reasons for judgment are fully supported by the evidence in the record. See Bell v. Ayio, 97-0534 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/13/98), 731 So.2d 893, 896 writ denied, 98-3115 (La. 2/5/99), 738 So.2d 7.
This court issued a rule to show cause order on why this appeal should not be dismissed as having been taken from a partial final judgment. As a result, the trial court issued a per curiam designating the judgment as final in accordance with the factors found in R.J. Messinger, Inc. v. Rosenblum, 04-1664, (La. 3/2/05), 894 So.2d 113, 1122. A judgment was signed on May 26, 2015 designating the judgment signed on October 2, 2014 as a final judgment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A court's determination about whether to issue a declaratory judgment is subject to the abuse of discretion standard; however, the judgment itself is still subject to the appropriate standard of review—questions of law are reviewed de novo and questions of fact are subject to the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of review. See Campbell v. Evangeline Par. Police Jury, 14-1301 (La. App. 3 Cir. 5/6/15), 164 So.3d 408, 412, writ denied, 15-1067 (La. 9/11/15), 176 So.3d 1043. Questions of contractual interpretation are questions of law which are subject to a de novo standard of review. See Mitchell v. Patterson Ins. Co., 00-612 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 774 So.2d 366, 368. Contracts have the force of law between the parties, and the courts are bound to interpret them according to the common intent of the parties. See La. C.C. arts. 1983 and 2045. If the words of the contract are clear, unambiguous, and lead to no absurd consequences, the court need not look beyond the contract language to determine the true intent of the parties. La. C.C. art. 2046. Each provision in a contract must be interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the contract as a whole. La. C.C. art. 2050.
LAW AND DISCUSSION
In her one assignment of error, Ms. Robert asserts that the trial court erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in denying her petition for declaratory judgment. She alleges that the pre-marital contract required both parties to each execute a separate declaration of reservation of fruits of separate property. However, Mr. Robert argues that despite a declaration never being perfected, the pre-marital contract itself acts as a reservation of the fruits and revenues of their separate property.
The Louisiana Civil Code allocates the fruits of a spouse's separate property to the community, unless the owner of the separate property has reserved the fruits as separate. La. C.C. art. 2339. Likewise, La. C.C. art. 2331 provides that "[a] matrimonial agreement may be executed by the spouses before or during marriage" and that "[i]t shall be made by authentic act or by an act under private signature duly acknowledged by the spouses."
In accordance with La. C.C. art. 2339, this reservation requires a declaration made in authentic act or in an act under private signature duly acknowledged, and a copy of the declaration shall be provided to the other spouse prior to the filing of the declaration. For fruits of immovables, the declaration is perfected when a copy is provided to the other spouse and the declaration is filed for registry in the conveyance records of the parish where the immovable is located. For fruits of movables, the declaration must also be provided to the other spouse and filed into the conveyance records of the parish where the declarant is domiciled.
This Court finds that the pre-marital contract executed by the parties complied with the formal requirements enumerated by La. C.C. art. 2339. The pre-marital contract was in authentic form, as it was executed before a notary public in the presence of two witnesses, it was recorded by the Clerk of Court in the proper Parishes of East Baton Rouge and Ascension, and a copy was provided to Ms. Robert.
Louisiana Civil Code article 1833 provides that an authentic act is a writing executed before a notary public or other officer to perform that function, in the presence of two witnesses, and signed by each party who executed it, by each witness, and by each notary public before whom it was executed.
Although the parties were living under a contractual regime of community property, spouses may decrease the assets of the community by agreeing that the fruits of separate property will remain separate. Two key provisions in the pre-marital contract specifically detailed that the fruits of their separate property were to remain separate. Paragraph two of the pre-marital contract states that "each of them does hereby reserve unto themselves individually the entire administration of their respective separate property, and the respective free enjoyment of the fruits and revenues from their separate property." Paragraph four states that "each of them, acting alone, shall have the right to use, enjoy and dispose of his or her separate property and any fruits or revenues from such separate property without the consent or concurrence of the other[.]" The detailed language in these two paragraphs clearly manifests that the nature of the pre-marital contract was to reserve the fruits of the separate property and specifies that the fruits would be for the parties separate use to enjoy and dispose of. After considering the specific language used in the pre-martial contract, this Court concludes that the trial court was correct in finding that the pre-marital contract reserved the fruits of each spouses separate property to that spouse for the spouse to use, enjoy, and dispose of.
Furthermore, the pre-marital contract reflects a clear intent of the parties to modify their matrimonial regime and to keep the fruits of their separate property as separate. Louisiana Civil Code article 2045 provides that the interpretation of a contract is the determination of the common intent of the parties. Here, the intent of the parties to make a reservation of fruits is clearly found in the language "right to use, enjoy and dispose of his or her separate property and any fruits and revenues from such separate property[.]" When legal prerequisites are followed in the execution of a pre-marital contract to clearly separate property, this constitutes evidence of an intent to make an asset separate rather than community. See Jenkins v. Leonard, 47,001 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/29/12), 87 So.3d 230, 234. Thus, the language used in the pre-marital contract is a sufficient reservations of the fruits.
Ownership is the right that confers on a person direct, immediate, and exclusive authority over a thing. The owner of a thing may use, enjoy, and dispose of it within the limits and under the conditions established by law. La. C.C. art. 477. --------
After looking at the entire substance of the pre-marital contract, this Court agrees with the trial court, which determined that a reservation was effectively made by the parties when executing this pre-marital contract and that no additional declaration was required. The intent of the pre-marital contract was to limit the scope and applicability of the community property regime to the parties and their property. The provisions in the contract that maintain their separate property and the fruits from that property as separate in nature should be given effect to that end. See La. C.C. art. 2050. ("Each provision in a contract must be interpreted in light of the other provisions so that each is given the meaning suggested by the contract as a whole.").
Accordingly, the fruits of the separate property of the parties were reserved as separate and remain their separate property. The pre-marital contract perfected a reservation of separate property, as all parties consulted with counsel and had notice of the intent and effects of the agreement that they were entering into before signing the contract.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, this Court finds that the pre-marital contract executed by the parties sufficiently complies with La. C.C. art. 2339. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court in favor of Harry Robert, II is affirmed. Costs of appeal are to be paid by Julie Robert.
AFFIRMED.