why don't judges in La. rule by the law?

Question

community property state. Local judge gives all assets to working spouse. Why?

Answer 1

First, remember that just because a state follows Community Property laws doesn't mean that all property is automatically CP. If the income derives solely from a separate property asset, it generally remains separate property. Each CP state has different rules for modifying this, but the basic premise remains.

Also remember that Louisiana is a civil law, rather than common law, jurisdiction. That means that each judge is free to interpret the statutory laws as they wish, and that prior judicial rulings do not have the same binding effect that they do in common law states. Thus, unless the legislative statute specifically determines what happens in a particular situation, the outcome is less certain than it would be in other states.

There are not enough facts to answer your question fully. If the working spouse owns the business, and owned the business before getting married, then the business may be considered a separate property asset, and thus any proceeds are separate property. Or the working spouse may be entitled to specific assets because of a pre-nup agreement. Or because of debt allocation. Or for dozen other reasons, all dependent on facts not listed.

The bottom line is that the judge probably is ruling according to what the law (the legislative statutes) say, but either the statutes don't cover this particular case, or the facts lead to a situation that may not make sense at first glance, because of the way the law is written. But if the judge isn't following the law, that's grounds for appeal.

Answer 2

First, remember that just because a state follows Community Property laws doesn't mean that all property is automatically CP. If the income derives solely from a separate property asset, it generally remains separate property. Each CP state has different rules for modifying this, but the basic premise remains.

Also remember that Louisiana is a civil law, rather than common law, jurisdiction. That means that each judge is free to interpret the statutory laws as they wish, and that prior judicial rulings do not have the same binding effect that they do in common law states. Thus, unless the legislative statute specifically determines what happens in a particular situation, the outcome is less certain than it would be in other states.

There are not enough facts to answer your question fully. If the working spouse owns the business, and owned the business before getting married, then the business may be considered a separate property asset, and thus any proceeds are separate property. Or the working spouse may be entitled to specific assets because of a pre-nup agreement. Or because of debt allocation. Or for dozen other reasons, all dependent on facts not listed.

The bottom line is that the judge probably is ruling according to what the law (the legislative statutes) say, but either the statutes don't cover this particular case, or the facts lead to a situation that may not make sense at first glance, because of the way the law is written. But if the judge isn't following the law, that's grounds for appeal.

Answer 3

sounds like the non working spouse did not have a very good lawyer.
Even if the non working spouse never worked through the entire marriage he or she is entitled to 1/2 of all assets gained since the start of the marriage.