Danielle Deon Dickerson Acurio v. Dr. Michael Thomas Acurio, 224 So. 3d 935

Parties (Danielle and Dr. Michael Acurio) signed a "Prenuptial Agreement" on Jan. 25, 2002, four days before their Jan. 29, 2002 marriage; the document was signed before one witness and a notary but was neither an authentic act nor contained contemporaneous acknowledgments of signatures.
Divorce proceedings began in 2009; plaintiff filed a motion in limine (July 2015) seeking exclusion of the 2002 agreement for failure to comply with La. Civ. Code art. 2331 form requirements.
The district court granted the motion, finding the agreement invalid because the first acknowledgment occurred post-nuptially (plaintiff’s 2010 deposition).
The Second Circuit reversed, holding acknowledgment need not occur prior to marriage and the agreement was valid and enforceable.
The Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs to resolve a split in the appellate courts over whether signatures on an act under private signature must be duly acknowledged prior to marriage for a matrimonial agreement to be valid.
The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal and reinstated the district court: held that an act under private signature must be duly acknowledged prior to marriage to have legal effect under La. Civ. Code art. 2331.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Acurio)	Defendant's Argument (Acurio)	Held
Whether an "act under private signature duly acknowledged" must be acknowledged before marriage to be valid under La. Civ. Code art. 2331	Acknowledgment must occur prior to marriage; otherwise agreement is imperfect and court approval would be required under art. 2329 to modify regime during marriage	Acknowledgment is a matter of evidentiary proof under general obligations (art. 1836) and may occur at any time; no temporal requirement in art. 2331	Held: Acknowledgment is a form requirement for pre-marital matrimonial agreements and must occur prior to marriage; post-nuptial acknowledgment cannot cure the defect

Ritz v. Ritz, 666 So.2d 1181 (La. App. 1995) (invalidated premarital matrimonial agreement for lack of prior acknowledgment)
Deshotels v. Deshotels, 150 So.3d 541 (La. App. 2014) (held form elements must be perfected before marriage; later court admissions cannot resurrect defective agreement)
Rush v. Rush, 115 So.3d 508 (La. App. 2013) (required court approval if spouses did not acknowledge signatures prior to marriage)
Lauga v. Lauga, 537 So.2d 758 (La. App. 1989) (invalidated matrimonial agreement for failure to acknowledge prior to marriage)
DiVincenti v. McIntyre, 611 So.2d 140 (La. App. 1992) (discusses presumption of genuineness and sanctity of authentic acts)
Poirier v. Poirier, 626 So.2d 868 (La. App.) (cited for strict construction of statutes that waive community property)
Acurio v. Acurio, 197 So.3d 253 (La. App. 2016) (Second Circuit decision reversed by the Supreme Court; had held post-nuptial acknowledgment permissible)