249 So. 3d 1016
La. Ct. App.2018Background
- Parties: Peggy T. Gereighty (wife) filed for divorce; Tavis Domingue (husband, now deceased) filed reconventional demands seeking reimbursement for funds/payments he allegedly provided for wife’s separate residence and related expenses. Jeff Bratton is the court‑appointed independent administrator on appeal.
- Prenuptial agreement (signed Oct. 2, 2002) established complete separation of property and contained express provisions allocating who pays "everyday and usual" versus "luxuries," reserved each party’s separate property and barred claims to the other’s separate property or its appreciation.
- Domingue alleged (in successive amended reconventional demands) he withdrew ≈$40,000 from a retirement account pre‑marriage to fund a down payment for the wife’s purchase of her brother’s interest, that the funds were not a gift and that he was promised an ownership interest; he also sought reimbursement for mortgage, insurance and other payments made during the marriage.
- Domestic commissioner granted wife’s exception of no cause of action (and declared wife’s res judicata exception moot); trial court later granted the exception of no cause of action and dismissed Domingue’s amended reconventional demands with prejudice, and denied both parties’ res judicata exceptions.
- On appeal the court: affirmed denial of Domingue’s res judicata exception; affirmed dismissal of reimbursement claims for expenses paid during the marriage; reversed dismissal of the claim to recover the ≈$40,000 (pre‑marriage) withdrawal and remanded that claim; vacated trial court’s ruling as to wife’s res judicata exception and reinstated the domestic commissioner’s ruling on that point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Domingue) | Defendant's Argument (Gereighty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether domestic commissioner’s objection hearing required a written opposition and whether trial court erred by permitting oral argument | Gereighty failed to file required written opposition; objection should be deemed unopposed | Local rules do not require an opposition to an objection to a hearing officer’s recommendation; court has discretion | Trial court did not abuse discretion; permitting oral argument was proper |
| Whether the prenuptial agreement bars reimbursement for mortgage, insurance and other expenses Domingue paid during the marriage | Those payments were separate debts of Gereighty and not waived by the prenup; alternatively unjust enrichment | Prenup expressly required Domingue to pay "everyday and usual" expenses and preserved each party’s separate property; contract bars reimbursement and unjust enrichment is subsidiary | Prenup bars reimbursement for expenses Domingue agreed to pay; dismissal of those claims affirmed |
| Whether Domingue stated a cause of action (unjust enrichment or other) to recover ~$40,000 provided pre‑marriage for down payment | Funds were not a donation; provided in exchange for ownership interest; unjust enrichment or contract/breach claim available | Funds were a donation made in contemplation of marriage; revocation of donation is available remedy; unjust enrichment not appropriate | Trial court erred to the extent it treated funds as a donation and dismissed claim; prenup does not govern pre‑marriage transfer; claim (remanded) can proceed at least as breach of contract (or alternative theories) |
| Whether domestic commissioner’s mooting of wife’s res judicata exception could be reviewed by trial court absent objection | Pretrial rulings foreclose wife from raising exceptions; trial court should have sustained Domingue’s res judicata exception | Domestic commissioner declared wife’s res judicata moot; trial court properly considered the matter | Trial court should not have reviewed the domestic commissioner’s mooting of wife’s res judicata exception (wife did not object); portion of trial court judgment denying wife’s res judicata exception vacated and commissioner’s ruling reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- City of New Orleans v. Board of Dirs. of La. State Museum, 739 So.2d 748 (La. 1999) (purpose and standard of exception of no cause of action; evidence generally not admissible except by waiver)
- Emigh v. W. Calcasieu Cameron Hosp., 145 So.3d 369 (La. 2014) (parties may enlarge pleadings by admitting evidence without objection at an exception hearing)
- Foti v. Holliday, 27 So.3d 813 (La. 2009) (de novo review of legal questions on exception of no cause of action)
- Pitre v. Opelousas General Hosp., 530 So.2d 1151 (La. 1988) (if any part of petition states a cause of action, exception must be overruled)
- Krielow v. Krielow, 635 So.2d 180 (La. 1994) (characterizing ordinary marital payments—house payments, taxes, insurance—as ordinary expenses)
- Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Jessen, 732 So.2d 699 (La. App. 1999) (unjust enrichment is subsidiary and cannot be used to circumvent contractual prohibitions)