§308. Separation from bed and board in covenant marriage; suit against spouse; jurisdiction, procedure, and incidental relief
A. Unless judicially separated, spouses in a covenant marriage may not sue each other except for causes of action pertaining to contracts or arising out of the provisions of Book III, Title VI of the Civil Code; for restitution of separate property; for separation from bed and board in covenant marriages, for divorce, or for declaration of nullity of the marriage; and for causes of action pertaining to spousal support or the support or custody of a child while the spouses are living separate and apart, although not judicially separated.
B.(1) Any court which is competent to preside over divorce proceedings, including the family court for the parish of East Baton Rouge, has jurisdiction of an action for separation from bed and board in a covenant marriage, if:
(a) One or both of the spouses are domiciled in this state and the ground therefor was committed or occurred in this state or while the matrimonial domicile was in this state.
(b) The ground therefor occurred elsewhere while either or both of the spouses were domiciled elsewhere, provided the person obtaining the separation from bed and board was domiciled in this state prior to the time the cause of action accrued and is domiciled in this state at the time the action is filed.
(2) An action for a separation from bed and board in a covenant marriage shall be brought in a parish where either party is domiciled, or in the parish of the last matrimonial domicile.
(3) The venue provided herein may not be waived, and a judgment of separation rendered by a court of improper venue is an absolute nullity.
C. Judgments on the pleadings and summary judgments shall not be granted in any action for separation from bed and board in a covenant marriage.
D. In a proceeding for a separation from bed and board in a covenant marriage or thereafter, a court may award a spouse all incidental relief afforded in a proceeding for divorce, including but not limited to spousal support, claims for contributions to education, child custody, visitation rights, child support, injunctive relief and possession and use of a family residence or community movables or immovables.
Acts 1997, No. 1380, §4.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
42
cases, 1982–2014 · leading case:
Burrell v. Burrell, 518 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
Burrell v. Burrell, 518 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 10× “According to the wife, by failing to assess rent for the time the husband lived in the house to her exclusion, the judgment of partition unjustly enriches the husband by effectively allowing him free use of the premises while fully reimbursing him from community funds for his…”
McConathy v. McConathy, 632 So. 2d 1200 (La. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Exercising its discretion under former LSA-R.S. 9:308 (now LSA-R.S. 9:374), the court found that she had not proven her entitlement to be paid rent, citing Wochomurka v.”
Jones v. Jones, 605 So. 2d 689 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “9:374, formerly LSA-R.S. 9:308. Although the trial court did not specifically state that Mrs.”
Bolden v. Bolden, 524 So. 2d 10 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 5× “A spouse awarded the use and occupancy of the family residence pending the partition of the community property in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 9:308(A) shall not be liable to the other spouse for rental for the use and occupancy, unless otherwise agreed by the spouses…”
Khaled v. Khaled, 424 So. 2d 370 (La. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 4× “The basis of appellant's exception of no cause of action is his contention that the family home is owned one-half by each party as separate property and that R.S. 9:308 *374 applies only to family homes which are community property.”
Mara v. Mara, 513 So. 2d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 3× “Mara urges that should this court apply the Davezac formula, equity and justice require that we likewise apply the provisions of R.S. 9:308(B) and charge Mr. Mara for the rental value of the house during his exclusive use and occupancy of it.”
Johnson v. Johnson, 168 So. 3d 641 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “R.S. 9:308, prohibited the parties from suing for child custody and support; and the parties submitted briefs on that issue.”
Harper v. Harper, 537 So. 2d 282 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The court was authorized at this point following the contradictory hearing to award occupancy of the premises under R.S. 9:308. This is the judgment appealed from.”
Rozier v. Rozier, 583 So. 2d 87 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “1987), the Fourth Circuit held that the predecessor to this provision, LSA-R.S. 9:308(B), as amended in 1986, *90 was remedial or curative in nature and thus could be applied retroactively to partition actions involving a spouse who occupied the family home without a court order…”
Goins v. Goins, 580 So. 2d 477 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 3× “LSA-R.S. 9:308(C) provides in pertinent part: C.”
Abercrombie v. Abercrombie, 434 So. 2d 1139 (La. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 3× “Use of the Family Home Appellant’s final argument is that the former family home is his separate property and that R.S. 9:308 does not, therefore, *1143 authorize the award of exclusive use of the home to plaintiff.”
Cryer v. Cryer, 706 So. 2d 167 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “We note that in addressing whether a spouse was entitled to reimbursement of rental value of the marital home at the time of partition where no prior award of rentals had been made, this court in Wochomurka stated that the legislative intent in the 1986 amendment to LSA-R.S.…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:308(A) — 9 cases
Burrell v. Burrell, 518 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
“According to the wife, by failing to assess rent for the time the husband lived in the house to her exclusion, the judgment of partition unjustly enriches the husband by effectively allowing him free use of the premises while fully reimbursing him from community funds for his…”
Bolden v. Bolden, 524 So. 2d 10 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
“A spouse awarded the use and occupancy of the family residence pending the partition of the community property in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 9:308(A) shall not be liable to the other spouse for rental for the use and occupancy, unless otherwise agreed by the spouses…”
Jones v. Jones, 605 So. 2d 689 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
“9:374, formerly LSA-R.S. 9:308. Although the trial court did not specifically state that Mrs.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:308(B) — 11 cases
Bolden v. Bolden, 524 So. 2d 10 (La. Ct. App. 1988).
“A spouse awarded the use and occupancy of the family residence pending the partition of the community property in accordance with the provisions of R.S. 9:308(A) shall not be liable to the other spouse for rental for the use and occupancy, unless otherwise agreed by the spouses…”
Burrell v. Burrell, 518 So. 2d 569 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
“According to the wife, by failing to assess rent for the time the husband lived in the house to her exclusion, the judgment of partition unjustly enriches the husband by effectively allowing him free use of the premises while fully reimbursing him from community funds for his…”
Mara v. Mara, 513 So. 2d 1220 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
“Mara urges that should this court apply the Davezac formula, equity and justice require that we likewise apply the provisions of R.S. 9:308(B) and charge Mr. Mara for the rental value of the house during his exclusive use and occupancy of it.”
Jones v. Jones, 605 So. 2d 689 (La. Ct. App. 1992).
“9:374, formerly LSA-R.S. 9:308. Although the trial court did not specifically state that Mrs.”
Rozier v. Rozier, 583 So. 2d 87 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
“1987), the Fourth Circuit held that the predecessor to this provision, LSA-R.S. 9:308(B), as amended in 1986, *90 was remedial or curative in nature and thus could be applied retroactively to partition actions involving a spouse who occupied the family home without a court order…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:308(C) — 4 cases
Goins v. Goins, 580 So. 2d 477 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
“LSA-R.S. 9:308(C) provides in pertinent part: C.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:308(D) — 1 case
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.