Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 97-C-2305 CHARLENE ARCEMENT BLANCHARD VERSUS WAYNE P. BLANCHARD MARCUS, J. (dissenting) In this case, the trial judge partitioned community assets that include the plaintiff's interest in a defined benefit pension plan in which she is fully vested and under which she can retire at any time at her option. present cash value of the Relying on the stipulated plan, the trial judge

retirement

allocated the retirement benefits in their entirety to the planholder wife. He allocated the former family home, which had a This real estate had

similar stipulated value, to the husband.

been the boyhood home of the husband and was sold to the couple by his family. La. R.S. 9:2801(c) provides that in allocating assets and liabilities in a partition proceeding, the trial judge may allocate an asset in its entirety to one of the spouses. In determining how

to best effectuate a partition, the trial judge is to consider not only the nature of the assets, but also the source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems relevant. Moreover, as we noted in our decision in Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118 (La. 1991), the present cash value method of valuing pension rights is frequently a preferred method where there is sufficient equivalent property to satisfy the claims of the nonemployee spouse without undue hardship to the employee spouse. In

my view, the trial judge did not commit manifest error in weighing the multiple considerations suggested by La. R.S. 9:2801(c) to determine that the entirety of the wife's retirement plan could be allocated to the wife and the entirety of the similarly valued former boyhood home of the husband could be allocated to the

husband without undue hardship to either party. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.



Download MARCUS, J.-dissents and assigns reasons..pdf

Louisiana Law