Bridgette Gravois Ortega VS Koury James Ortega
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2010 CA 1003 BRIDGETTE GRAVOIS ORTEGA VERSUS KOURY J ORTEGA F Judgment rendered December 22 2010 Appealed from the 16th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of St Mary Louisiana Trial Court No 120334 Honorable Edward M Leonard Jr Judge MUUMUU SAMUEL DAVID ABRAHAM ATTORNEY FOR LAFAYETTE LA PLAINTIFFAPPELLANT BRIDGETTE GRAVOIS ORTEGA MICHAEL D LOPRESTO ATTORNEY FOR NEW IBERIA LA DEFENDANTAPPELLEE KOURY JAMES ORTEGA BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW 33 and KLINE J pro tempore I Judge William F Kline Jr retired is serving as judge pro tempore by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court PETTIGREW J In this case plaintiff Bridgette Gravois Ortega filed a petition to annul a December 13 2004 judgment that was rendered terminating the community property regime that previously existed between her and defendant Koury J Ortega and substituting in lieu thereof a regime of separation of property Bridgette alleged that this judgment was obtained due to the fraudulent actions of Koury and his agents Bridgette further argued that she was never informed that she needed to speak to an attorney before signing the agreement and that she never appeared before the trial court prior to the entry of the judgment On February 2 2010 the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Koury dismissing Bridgette petition to annul and finding no s evidence that Bridgette was under duress in signing the agreement The trial court further found that based on this court holding in Boyer v Boyer 616 So 730 733 s 2d La App 1 Cir writ denied 620 So 882 La 1993 a hearing was not required for 2d the granting of the separation of property From this judgment Bridgette has appealed assigning the following specifications of error 1 The Trial Court erred in finding that Bridgette was not defrauded or mislead in agreeing to and signing the Termination of Community Property Regime when her husband and fatherinlaw decided it should be done before starting their new business partnership 2 The Trial Court erred in finding that the requirements of La Civil Code Art 2329 were adequately met when the District Judge failed to make a determination as to whether the termination was in the best interests of the parties and whether the parties understood the governing principles and rules Z In Boyer the issue was whether the failure of the trial court to hold a hearing with the parties and the signing of the separation of property agreement before it was approved by the court rendered the agreement an absolute nullity Boyer 616 So at 731 The trial court found that both the matrimonial 2d agreement and the partition were null and without legal effect On appeal this court reversed finding no requirement in Article 2329 that a hearing be held prior to the court granting the separation of property Boyer 616 So at 733 This court concluded t trial court must be satisfied that the spouses both 2d he agree to the change that the spouses understand the rules and principles underlying a change in the matrimonial regime and that the agreement appears to serve the best interest of the spouses Boyer 616 So at 732 2d 2 With respect to the initial error assigned by Bridgette the trial court concluded in written reasons for judgment as follows The petition alleges that Bridgette never spoke with an attorney prior to the judgment separating property nor was she ever informed of her need to do so she did not appear in court prior to the entering of the judgment she did not know that upon divorce she would have no community rights and the judgment of separation was fraudulently obtained by Koury and his agents The evidence does not support the allegations Koury and his step father wanted to go into business and in the process they would borrow a significant amount of money The business had a chance of succeeding but also of failing A failure would have involved community assets of the parties as well as their personal responsibility for the debt Discussions were had between the parties and with Attorney Stubbs about isolating Bridgette from responsibility for the loan He recommended the separation of property met with the parties to explain the process and prepared the documents He also advised Bridgette of her right to seek independent counsel Bridgette must have understood that she owned no part of the business just as she must have understood that she owned no part of the debt of the business The family home was relegated to Bridgette to protect it from the risk of the business venture while the rental property was relegated to Koury The Court finds there is no evidence of fraud or duress in the preparation or execution of the separation of property Based on our thorough review of the record herein we find no manifest error in this determination This assignment of error is without merit The second error assigned by Bridgette concerns the trial court determination s that no hearing was required for the granting of the separation of property It is the opinion of this court that Boyer is controlling precedent and thus this assignment is similarly without merit For the foregoing reasons we affirm the trial court judgment in accordance with s Uniform Rules Courts of Appeal Rule 2 16 All costs associated with this appeal are B 1 assessed against plaintiffappellant Bridgette Gravois Ortega AFFIRMED t
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
