§2801.1. Community property; allocation and assignment of ownership
When federal law or the provisions of a statutory pension or retirement plan, state or federal, preempt or preclude community classification of property that would have been classified as community property under the principles of the Civil Code, the spouse of the person entitled to such property shall be allocated or assigned the ownership of community property equal in value to such property prior to the division of the rest of the community property. Nevertheless, if such property consists of a spouse's right to receive social security benefits or the benefits themselves, then the court in its discretion may allocate or assign other community property equal in value to the other spouse.
Added by Acts 2001, No. 642, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1036, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 2002–2016 · leading case:
Comeaux v. Comeaux, 7 So. 3d 110 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Comeaux v. Comeaux, 7 So. 3d 110 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 11× “R.S. 9:2801.1 to award a spouse community property equal in value to social security benefits that cannot be considered as community property.”
Young v. Young, 931 So. 2d 541 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:2801.1. Specifically, the trial court must decide if Mrs.”
Bhati v. Bhati, 32 So. 3d 1107 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:2801.1, a trial court is granted discretion to choose whether to award a spouse additional community assets as compensation for the right to receive social security benefits, or the benefits themselves, of the other spouse when those benefits would otherwise be classified…”
Trahan v. Trahan, 43 So. 3d 218 (La. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:2801.1, to offset Mr. Trahan’s excess social security interest accumulated during the marriage.”
Marriage of Peterson, 243 Cal. App. 4th 923 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).
“” (La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 9:2801.1.) California, on the other hand, is unique in its approach to community property because it strictly limits trial court discretion.”
McKinstry v. McKinstry, 824 So. 2d 1260 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 13× “R.S. 9:2801.1, which became law on August 15, 2001, applies retroactively and allows the court to consider the value of her husband Byron McKinstry's social security benefits in dividing her Teachers' Retirement benefits.”
Williams v. Williams, 104 So. 3d 760 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “R.S. 9:2801.1, the plaintiff requested an assignment of additional property to offset the Social Security Disability Benefits received by her husband.”
Carmichael v. Brooks, 194 So. 3d 832 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 9× “R.S. 9:2801.1 to require [Ray] to pay [Heather] $22,000.”
Tucker v. Tucker, 103 So. 3d 493 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 10× “R.S. 9:2801.1. She argues that because she is in the teachers retirement system she does not receive any Social Security benefits while Mr.”
Ast v. Ast, 162 So. 3d 720 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “R.S. 9:2801.1, Ms. Gilley is entitled to be compensated for any loss she suffers created by such military retirement benefit conversion.”
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.