Brady v. Pirner
Citation | 261 So.3d 867 |
Decision Date | 05 December 2018 |
Docket Number | NO. 2018-CA-0556,2018-CA-0556 |
Parties | Karen L. BRADY, Wife of David A. Pirner v. David A. PIRNER |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US) |
Suzette Marie Smith, LOWE STEIN HOFFMAN ALLWEISS & HAUVER, LLP, 701 Poydras Street, Suite 3600, New Orleans, LA 70139-7735, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE
Martha J. Maher, Attorney at Law, 4603 South Carrolton Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, Deborah M. Henson, THE LAW OFFICE OF DEBORAH M. HENSON, LLC, 1222 Broadway Street, New Orleans, LA 70118, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT
(Court composed of Chief Judge James F. McKay, III, Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Paula A. Brown )
This is a declaratory judgment action arising out of the validity of an Agreement Before Marriage (the "Agreement") entered into by Appellant, David A. Pirner ("Mr. Pirner") and Appellee, Karen L. Brady ("Ms. Brady").1 Following their marriage, the couple filed for a divorce. In turn, Ms. Brady filed two separate petitions seeking declaratory judgments regarding the Agreement. The district court rendered two separate judgments in favor of Ms. Brady—one on July 29, 2016 and the other on February 6, 2018. Mr. Pirner seeks appellate review of the district court's February 6, 2018 judgment. Ms. Brady filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the motion to dismiss appeal and affirm the district court's February 6, 2018 judgment.
At the time the Agreement was executed by the couple, Mr. Pirner resided in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Ms. Brady resided in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Agreement stated that the couple was entering the Agreement "in consideration of their marriage and life together." The Agreement provided in pertinent part:
The Agreement had a severability clause which provided "[i]f any provision of this Agreement should hereafter be determined to be wholly or partially unenforceable, it shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the balance of this Agreement ...." The Agreement further provided that any dispute regarding the Agreement should be brought in a Minnesota Court and be construed by Minnesota law.
On June 16, 2015, Ms. Brady filed, in the district court, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment (the "First Petition") alleging the Agreement "establishing a regime of separation of property and reservation of fruits and revenues as separate property is invalid and ineffective due to lack of form and lack of filing for registry."2
On September 17, 2015, Mr. Pirner filed a Declinatory Exception of Improper Venue as to the First Petition asserting that the parties had agreed, as set forth in the Agreement, that the State of Minnesota would interpret the Agreement. On November 3, 2015, the district court overruled the exception on the ground it was untimely filed. Mr. Pirner did not seek review of the district court's judgment.
On July 29, 2016, a hearing was held on the First Petition, and the district court rendered judgment in favor of Ms. Brady. The July 29, 2016 judgment provided that the portion of the Agreement "purporting to establish a regime of separation of property between the parties" and "to reserve the fruits and revenues of separate property" was invalid as to form; thus, a community of acquets and gains existed between Ms. Brady and Mr. Pirner during their marriage. Mr. Pirner did not seek review of the July 29, 2016 judgment.
On March 28, 2017, Ms. Brady filed, in the district court, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment or Alternatively, to Establish Final Spousal Support (the "Second Petition") requesting a judgment declaring that certain provisions of Agreement were valid and enforceable including Mr. Pirner paying Ms. Brady a sum of $175,000, and the property located at 1331 Pine Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, be sold.
The couple agreed to submit the Second Petition on memorandum only to the district court.3 The district court, on February 6, 2018, rendered judgment finding the Agreement was "a valid and enforceable contract between the parties in accordance with Louisiana law—except as provided for within the July 29, 2016 Judgment ...." The district court issued written reasons which provided in pertinent part:4
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
... ... the district court's review and analysis of the contract ... was legally correct." Brady v. Pirner , 18-0556, ... p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/5/18), 261 So.3d 867, 874-75 ... Insurance ... policies should ... ...
-
Cajun Conti LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's
...the district court's review and analysis of the contract was legally correct." Brady v. Pirner, 18-0556, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/5/18), 261 So.3d 867, 874-75. Insurance policies should be interpreted under ordinary rules of contract interpretation. Sumner v. Mathes, 10-0438, p. 5 (La.App. ......
-
TKTMJ, Inc. v. Sewerage & Water Bd. of New Orleans
...contract; thus, a de novo review is proper. See Bodenheimer, 17-0595 at *4. In Brady v. Pirner, 18-0556, p. 13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/5/18), 261 So.3d 867, 876 (quoting Lalla v. Calamar, N.V., 08-0952, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/11/09), 5 So.3d 927, 932), this Court set forth the principles of la......
-
Morgan v. Foster
...been incurred and that cause was known or should have been known to the other party. La. C.C. art. 1949 ; Brady v. Pirner , 18-0556 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/5/18), 261 So.3d 867, 875. Error can manifest itself in two ways: mutually, i.e. , both parties are mistaken, or unilaterally, i.e. , only ......