## Facts

- Carl J. Krielow (husband) and Lynn N. Krielow (wife) married in 1980; the community terminated in 1988 and divorce followed.
- Carl owned a one-third stock interest in a closely held family corporation (Krielow Brothers, Inc. (KBI)) that was treated as his separate property.
- During the marriage Carl worked full-time managing KBI, served as a director, and did not receive a conventional salary; corporate draws were used to pay living expenses.
- KBI’s value increased substantially during the marriage; Lynn asserted the community was uncompensated or undercompensated for Carl’s labor and sought reimbursement tied to the increase in value of Carl’s separate KBI stock.
- Lynn also sought reimbursement for community obligations she alleged she paid using her separate funds.
- A separate dispute concerned a debt Carl assumed to facilitate his brother’s investment in a computer venture; Lynn challenged its classification as a community obligation.
- The trial court rejected most of Lynn’s reimbursement claims, finding she did not prove Carl’s labor caused the stock appreciation; it treated the computer-venture debt as community.
- The court of appeal affirmed and limited reimbursement for Lynn’s separate-fund payments based on findings that the community was near insolvency.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address the burden of proof for reimbursement based on uncompensated or undercompensated community labor on a spouse’s separate property.

## Issues

1. What burden of proof applies to a reimbursement claim under La. Civ. Code art. 2368 alleging that uncompensated or undercompensated community labor increased the value of a spouse’s separate property?
2. Was the debt Carl assumed to facilitate his brother’s computer venture properly classified as a community obligation?
3. How must courts apply La. Civ. Code art. 2365 when a spouse uses separate funds to pay community obligations, including the distinction between ordinary marital expenses and other community obligations?

## Decision

- Reversed in part and remanded.
- Held the lower courts applied an incorrect and overly demanding burden of proof to Lynn’s art. 2368 claim regarding appreciation of Carl’s separate KBI stock.
- Affirmed the classification of the computer-venture debt as a community obligation.
- Held the lower courts failed to apply the required art. 2365 distinction between ordinary and customary marital expenses and other community obligations; directed the trial court to make those determinations on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Under La. Civ. Code art. 2368, reimbursement may be owed when a spouse’s separate property increases in value due to uncompensated or undercompensated common labor or industry during the community; the measure is limited to one-half of the labor-attributed increase (or the value of the labor, if less).
- For art. 2368 claims, once the claimant makes a prima facie showing that (a) separate property increased in value during the community and (b) community labor was a substantial factor in that increase, the burden shifts to the owner-spouse to prove the appreciation resulted from other causes (e.g., ordinary course of events or external factors).
- A debt incurred or assumed during the community may be classified as a community obligation when supported by facts consistent with a community purpose; appellate courts defer to supported factual determinations.
- Under La. Civ. Code art. 2365, reimbursement for separate funds used to satisfy a community obligation requires identifying whether the payment was for ordinary and customary marital expenses or for other community obligations, because that classification affects reimbursement and the property against which it may be enforced.

## Conclusion

The court required a burden-shifting analysis for reimbursement based on uncompensated or undercompensated community labor increasing a spouse’s separate property and required a debt-by-debt application of art. 2365’s statutory distinction, affirming the challenged debt classification but remanding for recalculation of reimbursement under the correct standards.


Krielow v. Krielow, 635 So. 2d 180 (La. 1994)