Radcliffe 10, L.L.C. v. Burger

HOLDRIDGE, J.,

dissenting.. hi respectfully dissent from the .per cu-riam opinion allowing the trial court’s judgment to stand. The trial court’s ruling, which effectively permits a creditor of Mrs. Burger’s husband to seize her separate property, was clearly erroneous and without basis in the law or jurisprudence. Like the trial court, this court now fails to properly interpret and apply La. C.C. art. 2329 to the facts of this case.1 This error is compounded by the concurring opinion’s conclusion that the prior judicial finding regarding the Burgers’ separation of property agreement is an…