for subsequent rentals set forth in the amending petition would run from the date of that judicial demand, the court signified that it had accepted the construction proposed by Morella and it granted the protective order which he sought. A formal judgment setting forth the trial court's decision was signed on June 15, 1999. This appeal followed.

THE LAW
Our courts have addressed this issue on several occasions and the leading case is Abraham v. Abraham, 233 La. 808, 98 So.2d 197 (1957). In that case, the original petition by a husband against his wife was simply for separation from bed and board. He later supplemented his petition, and asked for an accounting and settlement of the community, for which he received a money judgment. The question before the Courtfornix. The first inclusion ROI was placed in the axial view over the AC where it appears in red due to its extension across the hemispheres. In order to capture the AC of both cerebral hemispheres, the ROI was drawn on all slices where the AC was visible, which usually varied between one and three slices. However, since fornix and parts of the internal capsule travel through this area, many extraneous fibers were captured when tractography was seeded from the first ROI. To exclude these extraneous fibers, a second inclusion ROI was placed in the midsagittal plane and was drawn over the existing ROI in such a way that it extended the border of the first ROI by two voxels. By adding a second inclusion ROI we limited