La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801 (2026)

CODE TITLE VI--MATRIMONIAL REGIMES

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CODE TITLE VI--MATRIMONIAL REGIMES

CHAPTER 1.  PARTITION OF COMMUNITY PROPERTY

§2801.  Partition of community property and settlement of claims arising from matrimonial regimes and co-ownership of former community property

A.  When the spouses are unable to agree on a partition of community property or on the settlement of the claims between the spouses arising either from the matrimonial regime, or from the co-ownership of former community property following termination of the matrimonial regime, either spouse, as an incident of the action that would result in a termination of the matrimonial regime or upon termination of the matrimonial regime or thereafter, may institute a proceeding, which shall be conducted in accordance with the following rules:

(1)(a)  Within forty-five days of service of a motion by either party, each party shall file a sworn detailed descriptive list of all community property, the fair market value and location of each asset, and all community liabilities.  For good cause shown, the court may extend the time period for filing a detailed descriptive list.  If a party fails to file a sworn detailed descriptive list timely, the other party may file a rule to show cause why its sworn detailed descriptive list should not be deemed to constitute a judicial determination of the community assets and liabilities.  At the hearing of the rule to show cause, the court may either grant the request or, for good cause shown, extend the time period for filing a sworn detailed descriptive list.  If the court grants the request, no traversal shall be allowed.

(b)  Each party shall affirm under oath that the detailed descriptive list filed by that party contains all of the community assets and liabilities then known to that party.  Amendments to the descriptive lists shall be permitted.  No inventory shall be required.

(2)  Within sixty days of the date of service of the last filed detailed descriptive list, each party shall either traverse or concur in the inclusion or exclusion of each asset and liability and the valuations contained in the detailed descriptive list of the other party.  For good cause shown, the court may extend the time period for a party to traverse or concur in the detailed descriptive list of the other party.  The trial of the traverses may be by summary procedure.  At the trial of the traverses, the court shall determine the community assets and liabilities; the valuation of assets shall be determined at the trial on the merits.  The court, in its discretion, may by ordinary procedure try and determine at one hearing all issues, including those raised in the traverses.

(3)  The court may appoint such experts pursuant to Articles 192 and 373 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure as it deems proper to assist the court in the settlement of the community and partition of community property, including the classification of assets as community or separate, the appraisal of community assets, the settlement of the claims of the parties, and the allocation of assets and liabilities to the parties.

(4)  The court shall then partition the community in accordance with the following rules:

(a)  The court shall value the assets as of the time of trial on the merits, determine the liabilities, and adjudicate the claims of the parties.

(b)  The court shall divide the community assets and liabilities so that each spouse receives property of an equal net value.

(c)  The court shall allocate or assign to the respective spouses all of the community assets and liabilities.  In allocating assets and liabilities, the court may divide a particular asset or liability equally or unequally or may allocate it in its entirety to one of the spouses.  The court shall consider the nature and source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems relevant.  As between the spouses, the allocation of a liability to a spouse obligates that spouse to extinguish that liability.  The allocation in no way affects the rights of creditors.

(d)  In the event that the allocation of assets and liabilities results in an unequal net distribution, the court shall order the payment of an equalizing sum of money, either cash or deferred, secured or unsecured, upon such terms and conditions as the court shall direct.  The court may order the execution of notes, mortgages, or other documents as it deems necessary, or may impose a mortgage or lien on either community or separate property, movable or immovable, as security.

(e)  In the event that the allocation of an asset, in whole or in part, would be inequitable to a party, the court may order the parties to draw lots for the asset or may order the private sale of the asset on such terms and conditions as the court deems proper, including the minimum price, the terms of sale, the execution of realtor listing agreements, and the period of time during which the asset shall be offered for private sale.

(f)  Only in the event that an asset cannot be allocated to a party, assigned by the drawing of lots, or sold at private sale, shall the court order a partition thereof by licitation.  The court may fix the minimum bids and other terms and conditions upon which the property is offered at public sale.  In the event of a partition by licitation, the court shall expressly state the reasons why the asset cannot be allocated, assigned by the drawing of lots, or sold at private sale.

B.  Those provisions of a domestic relations order or other judgment which partitions retirement or other deferred work benefits between former spouses shall be considered interlocutory until the domestic relations order has been granted "qualified" status from the plan administrator and/or until the judgment has been approved by the appropriate federal or state authority as being in compliance with applicable laws. Amendments to this interlocutory judgment to conform to the provisions of the plan shall be made with the consent of the parties or following a contradictory hearing by the court which granted the interlocutory judgment. The court issuing the domestic relations order or judgment shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties until final resolution.

C.  In the absence of an agreement between the parties for an extension of time or the granting by the court of an extension for good cause, if a party fails to comply with any time limit provided in this Section, upon motion of the other party or upon its own motion, the court may award reasonable attorney fees and court costs to the other party for the filing of or the response to the motion.  If the court rules, pursuant to Subparagraph (A)(1)(a) of this Section, that the other party's sworn detailed descriptive list be deemed to constitute the assets and liabilities of the community, then the court shall not award attorney fees and court costs to the other party.

Added by Acts 1982, No. 439, §1; Acts 1986, No. 225, §1; Acts 1992, No. 825, §1; Acts 1993, No. 28, §1; Acts 1995, No. 433, §2; Acts 1995, No. 1008, §1; Acts 1997, No. 35, §2; Acts 2001, No. 493, §1; Acts 2005, No. 415, §1.

NOTE:  SEE ACTS 1986, NO. 225, §5.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 368 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118 (La. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118 (La. 1991). · cites it 12× “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Kambur v. Kambur, 652 So. 2d 99 (La. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 13× “Kambur thereafter brought this suspensive appeal, arguing as his assignments of error: the trial court committed error by holding that the laws of community property do not apply in this matter; the trial court abused its discretion and erred when it divided the life insurance…”
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Robinson v. Robinson, 778 So. 2d 1105 (La. 2001). · cites it 8× “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Strickland v. Strickland, 7 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 29× “R.S. 9:2801 in partitioning the community property.”
Benoit v. Benoit, 91 So. 3d 1015 (La. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 11× “R.S. 9:2801. Tammy filed an answer and reconventional demand also seeking partition of community property.”
Ellington v. Ellington, 842 So. 2d 1160 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 8× “R.S. 9:2801 A(4)(c); Robinson, supra . The court is required to divide the community assets and liabilities so that each spouse receives property of an equal net value.”
Bible v. Bible, 895 So. 2d 547 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “Bible filed a Motion for Judgment of Nullity alleging that the judgment was improperly obtained in that the procedure set forth in LSA-R.S. 9:2801 was not followed. Specifically, Mr.”
Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997). · cites it 4× “La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2801 (West 1991 and Supp.”
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 731 So. 2d 175 (La. 1999). · cites it 16× “The court of appeal specifically found that the trial court erred in light of LSA-RS 9:2801, which instructs the trial court to consider "the nature and source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems…”
Durden v. Durden, 165 So. 3d 1131 (La. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “R.S. 9:2801 set forth the exclusive procedure by which community property is to be partitioned when the spouses are unable to agree on a partition of community property.”
Tanana v. Tanana, 140 So. 3d 738 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 16× “Tanana filed a Petition to Partition in the divorce proceeding, pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:2801. Thereafter, on July 28, 2010, Mr.”
Show all 368 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(1) — 10 cases
Patin v. Patin, 462 So. 2d 1356 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
Godwin v. Godwin, 533 So. 2d 1009 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
Joseph v. Joseph, 506 So. 2d 198 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
Allen v. Allen, 602 So. 2d 759 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
Washington v. Washington, 493 So. 2d 1227 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(1)(a) — 1 case
Brimer v. Brimer, 664 So. 2d 622 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(1)(b) — 3 cases
Smith v. Smith, 685 So. 2d 649 (La. Ct. App. 1996).
Aymond v. Aymond, 758 So. 2d 886 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Brimer v. Brimer, 664 So. 2d 622 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(2) — 9 cases
Queenan v. Queenan, 492 So. 2d 902 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
Godwin v. Godwin, 533 So. 2d 1009 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 728 So. 2d 503 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Washington v. Washington, 493 So. 2d 1227 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
St. Pierre v. St. Pierre, 479 So. 2d 575 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(3) — 4 cases
Crais v. Crais, 737 So. 2d 785 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Boyer v. Boyer, 691 So. 2d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 731 So. 2d 175 (La. 1999). “The court of appeal specifically found that the trial court erred in light of LSA-RS 9:2801, which instructs the trial court to consider "the nature and source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems…”
Brimer v. Brimer, 664 So. 2d 622 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4) — 21 cases
Kambur v. Kambur, 652 So. 2d 99 (La. Ct. App. 1995). “Kambur thereafter brought this suspensive appeal, arguing as his assignments of error: the trial court committed error by holding that the laws of community property do not apply in this matter; the trial court abused its discretion and erred when it divided the life insurance…”
Ellington v. Ellington, 842 So. 2d 1160 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 9:2801 A(4)(c); Robinson, supra . The court is required to divide the community assets and liabilities so that each spouse receives property of an equal net value.”
McElwee v. McElwee, 649 So. 2d 975 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
Queenan v. Queenan, 492 So. 2d 902 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
Reeves v. Reeves, 607 So. 2d 626 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4)(a) — 39 cases
Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118 (La. 1991). “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Preis v. Preis, 649 So. 2d 593 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
Reinhardt v. Reinhardt, 748 So. 2d 423 (La. 1999).
Queenan v. Queenan, 492 So. 2d 902 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
Robinson v. Robinson, 778 So. 2d 1105 (La. 2001). “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4)(b) — 18 cases
Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118 (La. 1991). “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Robinson v. Robinson, 778 So. 2d 1105 (La. 2001). “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Kambur v. Kambur, 652 So. 2d 99 (La. Ct. App. 1995). “Kambur thereafter brought this suspensive appeal, arguing as his assignments of error: the trial court committed error by holding that the laws of community property do not apply in this matter; the trial court abused its discretion and erred when it divided the life insurance…”
Rearden v. Rearden, 568 So. 2d 1111 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
In Re Succession of Moss, 769 So. 2d 614 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4)(c) — 45 cases
Head v. Head, 714 So. 2d 231 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
Hare v. Hodgins, 586 So. 2d 118 (La. 1991). “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Kambur v. Kambur, 652 So. 2d 99 (La. Ct. App. 1995). “Kambur thereafter brought this suspensive appeal, arguing as his assignments of error: the trial court committed error by holding that the laws of community property do not apply in this matter; the trial court abused its discretion and erred when it divided the life insurance…”
Robinson v. Robinson, 778 So. 2d 1105 (La. 2001). “Consequently, when the community is terminated, the employee's spouse is entitled to be recognized as the owner of one-half of the value attributable to the pension or deferred compensation right earned during the existence of the community.”
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 731 So. 2d 175 (La. 1999). “The court of appeal specifically found that the trial court erred in light of LSA-RS 9:2801, which instructs the trial court to consider "the nature and source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4)(d) — 3 cases
Michel v. Michel, 484 So. 2d 829 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
Patin v. Patin, 462 So. 2d 1356 (La. Ct. App. 1985).
Hebert's Holdings, L.L.C. v. Mouton, 709 So. 2d 983 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(4)(e) — 2 cases
Stewart v. Stewart, 728 So. 2d 473 (La. Ct. App. 1998).
Tuttle v. Tuttle, 462 So. 2d 175 (La. 1985).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A) — 13 cases
Vedros v. Vedros, 229 So. 3d 677 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
McCann v. McCann, 77 So. 3d 997 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Politz v. Politz, 149 So. 3d 805 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Williams v. Williams, 968 So. 2d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(1) — 2 cases
Lacombe v. Lacombe, 85 So. 3d 721 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Jemison v. Timpton, 38 So. 3d 1021 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(1)(a) — 5 cases
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Gauthier v. Gauthier, 886 So. 2d 681 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
Strickland v. Strickland, 7 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:2801 in partitioning the community property.”
McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 247 So. 3d 1105 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Sessions v. Succession of Sessions, 23 So. 3d 954 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(2) — 16 cases
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Katner v. Katner, 28 So. 3d 566 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Politz v. Politz, 149 So. 3d 805 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Strickland v. Strickland, 7 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:2801 in partitioning the community property.”
Jemison v. Timpton, 38 So. 3d 1021 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(3) — 4 cases
Westcott v. Westcott, 11 So. 3d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Wilkerson v. Wilkerson, 962 So. 2d 1137 (La. Ct. App. 2007).
Darden v. Darden, 139 So. 3d 33 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Melodye Patterson Nee Tanner v. Gary Edward Patterson (La. Ct. App. 2025).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(3)(a)(b) — 1 case
Strickland v. Strickland, 7 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:2801 in partitioning the community property.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(4) — 15 cases
Goines v. Goines, 62 So. 3d 193 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Ponson v. Ponson, 241 So. 3d 1213 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Jemison v. Timpton, 38 So. 3d 1021 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Trahan v. Trahan, 43 So. 3d 218 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(4)(a) — 22 cases
Sheridon v. Sheridon, 867 So. 2d 38 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Jemison v. Timpton, 38 So. 3d 1021 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
Westcott v. Westcott, 11 So. 3d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 254 So. 3d 800 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(4)(b) — 14 cases
David v. David, 117 So. 3d 148 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Strickland v. Strickland, 7 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:2801 in partitioning the community property.”
Westcott v. Westcott, 11 So. 3d 45 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Reagan v. Reagan, 250 So. 3d 1122 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 254 So. 3d 800 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(4)(c) — 21 cases
Elizabeth Webb v. Daniel Andrew Webb, 263 So. 3d 321 (La. 2018).
Berthelot v. Berthelot, 254 So. 3d 800 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
David v. David, 117 So. 3d 148 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
Williams v. Williams, 970 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “Subsection (A)(2) of LSA-R.S. 9:2801 refers to a trial of the traverses, at which time the court shall determine the assets and liabilities of the community.”
Goutierrez v. Goutierrez, 34 So. 3d 1058 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(4)(d) — 14 cases
Young v. Young, 931 So. 2d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Licciardi v. Licciardi, 207 So. 3d 638 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Reagan v. Reagan, 250 So. 3d 1122 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Trahan v. Trahan, 203 So. 3d 447 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Goutierrez v. Goutierrez, 34 So. 3d 1058 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(4)(e) — 2 cases
Ponson v. Ponson, 241 So. 3d 1213 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Eustis v. Eustis, 97 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(A)(l)(a) — 8 cases
Brown v. Brown, 210 So. 3d 297 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
Strickland v. Strickland, 7 So. 3d 1282 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:2801 in partitioning the community property.”
Lacombe v. Lacombe, 85 So. 3d 721 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Raymond v. Fluellen, 88 So. 3d 652 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
Riche v. Riche, 34 So. 3d 1004 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(B) — 3 cases
Price v. Price, 850 So. 2d 860 (La. Ct. App. 2003).
Stewart v. Stewart, 166 So. 3d 448 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
Goines v. Goines, 140 So. 3d 314 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(C) — 1 case
Lacombe v. Lacombe, 85 So. 3d 721 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(a) — 1 case
Harriss v. Harriss, 204 So. 3d 209 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(c) — 2 cases
Blanchard v. Blanchard, 731 So. 2d 175 (La. 1999). “The court of appeal specifically found that the trial court erred in light of LSA-RS 9:2801, which instructs the trial court to consider "the nature and source of the asset or liability, the economic condition of each spouse, and any other circumstances that the court deems…”
Unknown, 203 F.3d 855.
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(l)(a) — 1 case
Graefenstein v. Graefenstein, 866 So. 2d 958 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2801(l)(b) — 1 case
Soileau v. Soileau, 870 So. 2d 584 (La. Ct. App. 2004).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.