Succession of Duke - 44377 ( La. App. 2 Cir 07/01/09), 16 So. 3d 459

Rule:

Ark. Code Ann. § 28-12-102(1) provides that in determining whether the Arkansas Uniform Disposition of Community Property Rights at Death Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 28-12-101 et seq., applies to specific property, the following rebuttable presumption applies: Property acquired during marriage by a spouse of that marriage while domiciled in a jurisdiction under whose laws property could then be acquired as community property is presumed to have been acquired as or to have become, and remained, property to which this chapter applies.

Facts:

Appellant son filed separate petitions for declaratory judgment in his deceased father's succession. In the first petition, appellant alleged that he was the sole heir and administrator of his deceased mother's succession. He further alleged that upon the date of his father's remarriage, the legal usufruct terminated, and his father was required to deliver the property subject to the usufruct to him, along with legal interest on the funds from the date of termination of the usufruct. In the second petition, appellant contended that the Arkansas property was community property. The trial court ruled against the appellant in his first petition, but in the appellant’s favor in his second petition. The son appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not awarding legal interest on the sums held on account from the date that the usufruct ended, instead of just from the date of judicial demand. The father's succession challenged that part of the judgment classifying the Arkansas property as community property.

Issue:

1. Did the trial court err in not awarding legal interest on the sums held on account from the date that the usufruct ended, instead of just from the date of judicial demand? 
2. Did the trial court err in classifying the Arkansas property as community property under Louisiana law? 

Answer:

1) No. 2) No.

Conclusion:

The appellate court found that there was never a contract between the son, as heir and administrator, and the father concerning the funds subject to the usufruct. The La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 890 usufruct did not create a conventional obligation between them. Therefore, relying on La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 2000 in order to determine the interest owed from the date of remarriage until the date of judicial demand would have been inappropriate. The trial court properly awarded the amount of interest actually earned by the funds from the date of termination of the usufruct until the date of judicial demand. The trial court erred in applying La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3525 as that article referred to the situation where one spouse, not both, acquired foreign property. The trial court did not err in classifying the Arkansas property as community property under Louisiana law.