 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fritsche v. Vermilion Parish Hospital Service District #22/2/2005
ovo. Mississippi Land Co. v. S&A Properties II, Inc., 01-1623 (La.App. 3 Cir. 05/08/02), 817 So.2d 1200.
While Defendants assert that Louisiana does not recognize common-law marriages confected in other states, this is a misstatement of the law. In Parish v. Minvielle, 217 So.2d 684 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1969), this Court gave full faith and credit to a common-law marriage that was validly confected in Texas for the purposes of the decedent's common-law spouse bringing a wrongful death and survival action in Louisiana. In that case, we stated:
It is true that Louisiana does not recognize or permit the contracting of common-law marriages in this state . . . but we are obliged to give effect to such marriages when they are validly contracted in another state. This is commanded by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution, Art. 4, Section 1.
Id. at 688.
In Chivers v. Couch Motor Lines, Inc., 159 So.2d 544 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1964), the decedent and his common-law wife were residents of Florida and this Court allowed her to maintain the action for wrongful death in Louisiana (where the decedent was killed) since the marriage was valid under Florida law. In State v. Williams, 96-652 (La.App. 3 Cir. 02/05/97), 688 So.2d 1277, the Court did not allow the defendant (who was a Texas resident) to assert the marriage privilege since the alleged common-law marriage was not valid under Texas law. In Strawder v. Zapata Haynie Corp., 94-453 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/02/94), 649 So.2d 554, the alleged common-law wife of the decedent (both of whom were Texas residents) was not allowed to maintain the wrongful death action based on the court's finding that there was not enough evidence to support a finding of common-law marriage valid under Texas law.
Defendants fail to address the fact that in Williams and Strawder, the decisions not to recognize the common-law marriages were based on the findings that there were no valid common-law marriages confected in the states that allowed them.
Furthermore, defendants have introduced no evidence to suggest that the alleged common-law marriage was not validly confected in Texas. Thus, they have not met their burden of proof on the exception. See State on behalf of Jones v. Mallet, 97-611 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/17/97) 704 So.2d 958.
In Netecke v. State Through DOTD, 97-1516 (La.App. 3 Cir. 04/01/98), 715 So.2d 449, the mover raised the plaintiff's prior marriage as an impediment to a valid common-law marriage. This court agreed with the trial court's decision that the plaintiff failed to prove that his prior marriage was legally dissolved and that he failed to carry his burden of proof. In Netecke, the defense raised the impediment of a prior marriage and the burden shifted to the plaintiff. In the case sub judice, however, the defense merely said that Louisiana does not recognize common-law marriages or that no common-law marriage was established. They did not raise any impediment; therefore, the burden of proof did not fall on plaintiff to establish that no impediment existed.
In Guidry v. McZeal, 487 So.2d 780 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1986), this Court expressly stated that it does not dispute its prior holding in the Parish case. In Guidry, this Court affirmed the trial court's grant of the defendant's motion for summary and exception of no right of action. The plaintiff urged that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether she had attained a common-law marriage. The impediment was that her alleged common-law husband was married to another woman when he began living with the plaintiff in Texas. The plaintiff could not dispute this fact and therefore could not dispute th
Page 1 2 3 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|