Bordes v. Bordes (1999)
- Sam Shepherd
- May 26
- 3 min read
By Vanessa Pimentel
Overview
Bordes v. Bordes (1999) was a Louisiana Supreme Court case addressing whether disability rights benefits were considered community or separate property during the divorce of Mr. Gary Bordes and Ms. Roselyn Zito Bordes. After declaring he was disabled, Mr. Bordes began receiving two systems of disability retirement benefits: the Employees’ Retirement System of Jefferson Parish and the Parochial Employees’ Retirement System. During their divorce, the question stood: were these disability benefits Mr. Bordes' private property or community property? This court case explores whether Ms. Bordes has a right to these benefits or if these benefits belong to Mr. Bordes alone as a result of their divorce.
Summary
The couple was married for 10 years lasting from December 5, 1981 through May 8, 1991 when they were divorced. Mr Bordes started his job with Jefferson Parish Water Department on May 1, 1972 lasting until November 17, 1994 when he declared comepled disability as a result from avascular necrosis and aplastic anemia. The former is the process of bone tissue dying off because of a lack of blood supply while the latter is a type of condition that occurs due to bone marrow no longer producing enough blood cells (Mayo Clinic). Thus, because of his disabilities Mr. Bordes received $1,310.24 from Parochial Employees’ Retirement System of Louisiana and $503.69 from Employee’s Retirement System of Jefferson Parish per month. In total he was receiving $1,813.93 in disability benefits each month.
On October 5, 1995, the initial division of community property was first filed by Ms. Bordes. Prior to their trial, a consent judgment was reached upon by each party on several issues. The most notable being that their stipulation on Qualified Domestic Relations Order acknowledging Ms. Bordes’ 23% interest in both of Mr. Bordes’ retirement plans mentioned above. This taking effect on May 17, 2014 as this would be when Mr. Bordes is technically eligible for normal retirement. However, the issue at hand that needed to be resolved in trial court was how to classify Mr. Bordes disability retirement benefits that he has received since November 17, 1994.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found the Parochial System benefits to be community property as they found it to be deferred compensation. On the other hand, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court on the Jefferson System benefits, instead classifying them as Mr. Bordes’ separate property on the ground that it was only available upon disability and not based on actual years employed. Mr. Bordes’ then went on to request for a review on the Court of Appeals decision over the Parochial System benefits which was granted by the Louisiana Supreme Court. The Supreme Court proceeded to determine if this form of compensation was by nature retirement (separate property) or pension income (community property). In Louisiana law typically a former spouse had an entitlement to pro rata share of retirement benefits allowing it to be community property. But disability benefits had been inconsistent on how to classify among the appellate courts. In this case, the court found exams, termination upon recovery, and conditionality on disability present which indicates the purpose for this compensation was for lost earnings. This was found to be similar to La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 2344 claiming, “Damages due to personal injuries sustained during the existence of the community by a spouse are separate property.” Additionally, since benefits were to convert to normal retirement benefits when he is 60 with no changes to the amount, this added to the fact that this disability payment was for the replacement of lost income and not normal retirement.
Ultimately, the Supreme court determined Mr. Bordes’ benefits from the Parochial Employees’ Retirement System were his separate property since this compensation was for lost earnings because of his disability (U.S Supreme Court). Yet the consent judgment outlined above is to still be adhered by and comes into effect on May 17, 2012 when Mr. Bordes reaches normal retirement age. After that date Ms. Bordes is entitled to her community share.
Impact
Bordes v. Bordes is a significant case that defines a person’s disability benefit as their separate property. Currently, the decision of the case is mentioned in the Retirement Law Handout of Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System claiming “Disability benefit is a member’s separate property (Lasers). This case has been cited numerous times for other similar cases and has helped individuals keep their disability benefits as their separate property.
Court Documents
Citations
Mayo Clinic . “Aplastic Anemia - Symptoms and Causes.” Mayo Clinic, 11 Feb. 2022, www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/aplastic-anemia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355015. Accessed 23 May 2025.
Mayo Clinic. “Avascular Necrosis - Symptoms and Causes.” Mayo Clinic, 17 May 2022, www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/avascular-necrosis/symptoms-causes/syc-20369859. Accessed 23 May 2025.
RETIREMENT LAW HANDOUT Post-Retirement OGB Insurance Eligibility. https://legis.la.gov/LegisDocs/CLE/2020/Retirement_Law.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2025.
“Welcome to Zscaler Directory Authentication.” Findlaw.com, 2025, caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-supreme-court/1418436.html. Accessed 23 May 2025.
