Succession of Faget v. Faget
53 So. 3d 414
La.2010Background
- William E. Faget and Audrey Menard (both previously married) entered a matrimonial agreement before marriage; a Residence Agreement (Nov. 30, 1992) purported to make the residence and furnishings community property; William died (May 12, 2003) leaving Audrey with a life usufruct and the children as naked owners; the Residence Agreement was recorded; the Faget children filed revendicatory action and succession petition seeking full ownership of the home; the trial court held Audrey was a one-half owner with usufruct over the other half; the court of appeal reversed, asserting the Residence Agreement modified the regime and required court approval; the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether a single asset can modify a regime under La.Civ.Code art. 2329 and whether art. 2343.1 requires an existing community regime.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Residence Agreement modify the matrimonial regime requiring court approval? | Faget argues it does modify the regime and thus required approval. | Audrey contends it is a single-asset transfer not modifying the regime. | No modification; not requiring court approval. |
| Does La.Civ.Code art. 2343.1 require an existing community regime for transfer to have effect? | Faget contends art. 2343.1 applies only if regime exists. | Audrey argues the statute applies to transfer from separate to community. | Art. 2343.1 applies and does not require preexistence of a community regime. |
| Was William's capacity to enter the Residence Agreement challenged, and is there estoppel? | Faget asserts lack of capacity given illness; some relatives seek to invalidate. | Audrey argues capacity was present; heirs estopped after decade. | Heirs estopped; capacity not successfully attacked; agreement valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- M.J. Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 998 So.2d 16 (La. 2008) (statutory interpretation guidance on legislative intent and article 9, 10 principles)
- Dejoie v. Medley, 9 So.3d 826 (La. 2009) (statutory interpretation and legislative history relevance)
- Succession of William Edward Faget, 29 So.3d 1243 (La. 2010) (application of art. 2343.1 to transfers at death)
- Succession of Faget, 30 So.2d 796 (La. 2010) (interplay of matrimonial agreements and succession claims)
- Louisiana Safety Ass’n of Timbermen Self-Insurers Fund v. Louisiana Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 17 So.3d 350 (La. 2009) (standard for summary judgment and de novo review)