Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Litigation

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
March 18, 2004

Costs Related to Sale of Marital Residence

Under Louisiana law, after a divorce, the parties become “co-owners in indivision” of the marital residence, entitling each to reimbursement of fees and other costs from the other co-owner in proportion to the percentage of ownership. Gore v. Gore, Number 2003 CA 0491, Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, 2003 0491, Dec. 31, 2003.

The parties were divorced by judgment on Oct. 6, 1999. Thereafter, on Oct. 30, 2001, the parties agreed, inter alia, to sell the marital residence in order to satisfy other marital obligations. On May 17, 2002, the husband moved to compel the sale of the marital residence, for an order that the residence be vacated, for contempt and other relief. The trial court ordered the wife to cooperate immediately in signing any documents necessary to effectuate the sale of the marital residence. The trial court further ordered the wife to pay one-half of the closing costs related to the sale of the residence. The wife was also found in contempt of court and ordered to pay the husband's attorney's fees and court costs related to the husband's motion to compel the sale of the residence. The wife appealed. The appellate court held that the wife was required to pay one-half of the closing costs. After the parties' divorce, the parties' became “co-owners in indivision” of the marital residence, and under Louisiana civil law, a co-owner in indivision is entitled to reimbursement from the other co-owner of costs in proportion to each owner's percentage of ownership. Therefore, the wife was required to pay one-half of the closing costs related to the sale of the marital residence, even though the husband had indicated a willingness to pay for all of the closing costs in other documentation during the parties' matrimonial litigation. The appellate court held that the husband was not entitled to attorney's fees because, as required under Louisiana law, the lower court failed to state any basis for its award.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?