Case Note by Brandon K. Blair
In Louisiana, “[t]he sources of law are legislation and custom.” Proper adjudication by Louisiana courts thus requires grounded analysis in the custom and laws espoused by the civil law; in Louisiana, jurisprudence must be entrenched in the articles of the Louisiana Civil Code to be authoritative. Yet, in the noted case, Orgeron v. Orgeron, the Louisiana Supreme Court fails to fully address the critical role of the Louisiana Civil Code articles on obligations, thereby rendering the opinion susceptible to substantial critique.
In Orgeron, the court faced the issue of whether an ex-wife was owed a community property share of liquidated damages paid to her ex husband upon the termination of his employment if the contract that granted such payment was effective during their marriage. Unique to this case were the circumstances and personalities involved. Defendant/ex husband, Ed Orgeron, was a well-known—perhaps infamous—college football coach at Louisiana State University (LSU). Following a celebrated national championship victory, Mr. Orgeron signed a “Binding Terms Sheet” (BTS) with LSU, effective January 14, 2020. Forty-three days later, Mr. Orgeron filed a petition for divorce on February 26, 2020, against Kelly Orgeron. He subsequently signed an “Employment Agreement” on April 22, 2020, with an effective start date backdated to January 14, 2020. And on April 28, 2020, Ms. Orgeron filed a petition, in part, claiming a community property interest in certain agreements between Mr. Orgeron and LSU. One year after Ms. Orgeron filed her petition, LSU terminated Mr. Orgeron’s employment, and he received damages of over $16 million as a result. Ms. Orgeron claimed to own an interest in the damages.
At trial, Ms. Orgeron argued that her right to an equal share of the damages was granted by her interest in the BTS and the Employment Agreement, both made effective during the time of the marital community of acquets and gains. Both lower courts held that Ms. Orgeron had no interest in the underlying contractual agreements and that her ex husband’s right to the damages did not arise during the marriage. Ms. Orgeron appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
The noted case is significant because the court fails to consider the fullness of the Louisiana Civil Code when explaining why contractual damages should be classified as community property. While correctly decided, the court’s analysis in Orgeron is substantively weak because it neglects to address the critical role of the law of obligations in the community of acquets and gains. Specifically, the court fails to grapple with the issue of whether the Employment Agreement, signed after the BTS, served as a novation of the BTS. Part II of this Note provides a background on the law of obligations and modes of extinguishing obligations under the Louisiana Civil Code. Part III discusses the court’s decision, focusing on its finding that the employment agreement “continued and confirmed” the terms of the BTS according to the “cardinal rule[s]” of contract formation. In Part IV, this Note argues that the court’s opinion ignores the civilian law on obligations which would fortify its conclusion. Part V briefly concludes.
About the Author
Brandon K. Blair, J.D. Candidate 2027, Tulane University Law School; M.A. (Melit.) 2022, L-Università ta’ Malta; M.Sc. 2022, George Mason University; B.A./B.A. 2021, Mississippi College.
Citation
100 Tul. L. Rev. Online 1 (2026) 53