Broyles v. Broyles

Decision Date12 November 1968
Docket NumberNo. 7342,7342
Citation215 So.2d 526
PartiesHelen Bridges BROYLES v. Herbert BROYLES. Herbert BROYLES v. Helen Bridges BROYLES.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Ponder & Ponder, Amite, for appellant and appellee Herbert Broyles.

Schilling & Simpson, Amite, for appellant and appellee Helen Bridges Broyles.

Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and BAILES, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

These two suits seek the partition of the community formerly existing between the parties. The points at issue in this case involve claims by the separate estate of each party against the community, and claims by the community against their separate estates. The district court rendered a judgment decreeing the partition, ordering the sale of the community immovables, recognizing some of the claims and rejecting others. Both parties have appealed.

The parties were married on November 18, 1949. Mrs. Broyles was a widow and owned certain property in Michigan which she had inherited from her husband. One of those parcels was a business which she had sold, and on which she was receiving payments of $200.00 per month, including principal and interest. These payments, which continued until May 13, 1954, were deposited in a community account. The total principal received was $8,102.15, the remainder being attributed to itnerest.

In March, 1950, Mrs. Broyles renegotiated the sale, and, in addition to the above payments, which were continued by the new purchasers, received a cash payment of $2,000.00, which was deposited in a bank in Michigan, in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Broyles. The balance of $1,162.62 in the Michigan account was withdrawn and deposited in a joint account in a bank in Kentwood, Louisiana, on May 31, 1950, bringing its balance to $1,684.08.

On June 2, 1950, $1,998.80 of Mr. Broyles' separate funds were deposited in the same account, bringing the total balance to $3,673.91. A few small checks were drawn on the account, and on June 7, a deposit of $199.30 was made bringing the balance to $3,803 .41. On June 8, the Broyles bought a home in Kentwood, and paid the $3,500.00 down payment with a check on the joint account.

On January 9, 1951, Mrs. Broyles received $3,300.00 from the sale of her former home in Michigan and deposited it in the joint account in Louisiana.

In June, 1954, Mrs. Broyles completed the sale of the business in Michigan, and received therefrom and deposited in a new joint savings account the sum of $6,219.00. On September 4, 1954, $219.00 was withdrawn from the account. On August 1, 1956, $2,243.61 was withdrawn from the account. This amount is equal to $2,000.00 plus all interest credited to the account up to that time, and left a balance of $4,000.00. Various deposits and withdrawals, together with interest credited to the account, brought the balance to $5,682 .26 on February 14, 1959. On February 28, 1959, $5,000.00 was withdrawn from the account and used as a down payment on a farm purchased by the community.

Mr. Broyles testified that he received $1,800.00 from the sale of separate property and that he paid this amount on the mortgage bearing against the farm.

When the parties were married, each of them had a life insurance policy, premiums on which were paid with community funds during the existence of the marriage. It is stipulated that the cash value of Mr. Broyles' policy increased $375.00 during that time. It was further stipulated that Mrs. Broyles' policy increased in value $1,873.45 during the same period. The community claims a credit against the separate estate of each party to the extent of the enhancement.

It further appears from the record that Mr. Broyles had $907.98 in the Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana at the end of the 1949--1950 fiscal year, and $6,422.62 at the end of the 1964--1965 fiscal year. Mrs. Broyles claims that the community has enriched Mr . Broyles' separate estate to the extent of the increase.

It further appears that, in January, 1965, shortly before the separation suit was filed, Mr. Broyles withdrew $2,603.08 from a homestead, $823.23 from a credit union and sold a Volkswagen for $925.00. All of these amounts were community funds. He paid community debts totalling $2,581.19 with the funds, but was unable to account for the balance of $1,770.12. Mrs. Broyles is claiming that he owes that amount to the community.

Mr. Broyles claims that, at the time of the marriage, he owned three automobiles and a boat, valued at $4,100.00, and that he should be allowed the return of like chattels or their value.

From the above circumstances, it appears that Mrs. Broyles has shown that she received $19,621.15 from the sale of her separate properties during the marriage, and that all of it was either invested in community property or co-mingled with community funds.

The district judge found that $1,162.62 of the down payment on the home and all of the $5,000.00 down payment on the farm were identifiable as her separate property which had been used to enhance the value of the community, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Guilott v. Guilott
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 22 Enero 1976
    ...Rieger, 37 La.Ann. 104 (1885); Peters v. Norris, supra; Succession of Smith, 232 So.2d 569 (La.App.4th Cir. 1970); Broyles v. Broyles, 215 So.2d 526 (La.App.1st Cir. 1968); Gregory v. Gregory, 223 So.2d 238 (La.App.3rd Cir. 1969); Gouaux v. Gouaux, 211 So.2d 97 (La.App.1st Cir. 1968); Succe......
  • Lane v. Lane
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 31 Octubre 1978
    ...Succession of Hemenway, 228 La. 572, 83 So.2d 377 (1955); Bruyninckx v. Woodward, 217 La. 736, 47 So.2d 478 (1950); Broyles v. Broyles, 215 So.2d 526 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1968). Others were not technically community, but are part-owned by each spouse, because purchased by the husband after the......
  • Phillips v. Nereaux
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • 13 Febrero 1978
    ...but gives the wife an action against the husband or his heirs for the loss sustained from said sales. This Court in Broyles v. Broyles, 215 So.2d 526 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1968) relying on Thigpen,supra, said that "a husband who has sold or disposed of community property by fraud, to injure his......
  • Reynolds v. Reynolds
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 1 Noviembre 1979
    ...232 So.2d 569 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970), also requiring that a wife abandon control of her separate property; and Broyles v. Broyles, 215 So.2d 526 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1968). On the other hand, in two cases, Succession of Slavich, 232 So.2d 846 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1970) and Gouaux v. Gouaux, 211 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT