Article by Richard W. Bartke
In the summer of 1978, the Louisiana Legislature passed Act No. 627, which finally amended the archaic provisions of the state's community property regime. This momentous event signaled Louisiana's entry into the mainstream of the twentieth century. It marked the culmination of years of dedicated effort by a group of scholars headed by Professor Janet Mary Riley of the Loyola Law School. The history and origin of these efforts are well documented and require no additional exposition.
The 1978 reforms provoked immediate commentary and criticism. First, Professor Robert A. Pascal published an article in this Review which bitterly criticized the legislation. Several months thereafter, the Louisiana Law Review devoted its Winter 1979 issue to a symposium on the statute. That symposium contained an article by Mr. William Tete that was similarly critical, although his choice of language and approach was considerably more moderate than was Professor Pascal's.
Subsequently, additional developments took place. Pursuant to the provisions of House and Senate Concurrent Resolutions, the Louisiana Law Institute prepared suggested amendments to Act No. 627. These were introduced in the 1979 regular legislative session in the form of House Bill 798, which was further amended during the legislative process and adopted as Act No. 709. The adoption of this new act came too late to be reflected in any of the discussions of the revisions that have appeared as of the date of this writing.
In light of these events, further discussion of the new matrimonial regime legislation is clearly in order. The criticisms levelled against the reforms should not be allowed to stand unanswered. In addition, it is important that the 1979 amendments be assessed to determine whether they improve the work of the 1978 legislature, leave it essentially unchanged, or represent a retreat from the reforms initially undertaken. Finally, it would be helpful, if only as a matter of perspective, to reach a balanced overview of the reforms to determine whether they have gone far enough and what additional changes might strengthen and improve the matrimonial regime of the state.
These are the objectives of this article. In responding to the critics of reform, the primary focus will be on the remarks of Professor Pascal, whose critique represents the most caustic and abrasive attack that is likely to appear; where appropriate, however, reference will be made to Mr. Tete's criticisms as well.
Before undertaking that discussion, it would be helpful to set out briefly the basic nature of the matrimonial regime as it existed before the legislative changes went into effect, and to summarize the salient features of the reforms and the basic objections of those who criticize them.
About the Author
Richard W. Bartke. Professor of Law, Wayne State University. A.B. 1954, J.D. 1956, University of Washington; LL.M. 1967, Yale University.
Citation
54 Tul. L. Rev. 294 (1980)