WILLIAM DERING v. KAY DERING (2023)

Respectfully, in furtherance of an equitable solution the majority reads between the lines of the contractual agreement rather than enforce it as written. Validity of the agreement is only contingent on the stipulations that Kay maintains the property, pays the monthly note, and did not remarry or set up another household with another male while the minor children remained in her custody. As observed by Chief Justice Weimer, the agreement does not provide that Kay's right to use the property necessarily terminated when the children reached majority status. Accordingly, I would enforce the agreement according to its plain language and affirm. “It is not the province of the courts to relieve a party of a bad bargain, no matter how harsh.” Bergeron v. Andersen, 22-0150 (La. 4/5/22), 335 So.3d 243 (quoting Gibbs Const. Co., Inc. v. Thomas, 500 So.2d 764, 768 (La. 1987)).

GRIFFIN, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by Chief Justice Weimer and assigns additional reasons.