Bennett v. Porter
58 So. 3d 663
La. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff Cathy Bennett seeks partition of property she asserts she co-owned through her mother’s succession.
- Defendants filed an exception of no right of action arguing the town property was the separate property of T. Barrett Porter and Juanita Gabro.
- Trial court held a hearing and found the 1980 conveyance was a simulation and that Bennett had no interest.
- Evidence included a 1980 deed titled Sale of Immovable Property with Reservation of Vendor’s Lien and a related Co-Ownership Agreement.
- Court concluded the transfer was a donation to children (donation in disguise) and that the town property was Bennett’s mother’s relatives’ separate property, not community.
- Bennett’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence was denied; the exception of no right of action was upheld on appeal and costs were taxed against Bennett.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bennett has a right to partition the town property. | Bennett argues she inherited an interest. | Porter contends the property is separate. | Yes, Bennett has no right; property is separate. |
| Whether the 1980 conveyance was a sale or a simulation/donation. | Bennett disputed the transaction as a sale, not a donation. | Defendants argued it was a valid sale or akin to a valid transfer. | Donation in disguise proven; sale was a simulation. |
| Whether parol evidence was properly admitted to prove simulation. | Parol evidence should be barred to vary a written instrument. | Article 1848 permits parol evidence to prove simulation. | Admissible; trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether Co-Ownership Agreement was admissible and relevant. | Agreement is irrelevant to ownership. | Agreement, filed with the deed, informs intent. | Admissible; did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the town property is community or separate property for inheritance purposes. | If community, plaintiff may inherit; if separate, she has no interest. | Property identified as separate; donor/donees intended separate property. | Property found to be separate property of the heirs, not community. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sonnier v. Conner, 998 So.2d 344 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2008) (admissibility of parol evidence to prove simulation under Art. 1848)
- Purcell v. Purcell, 697 So.2d 728 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1997) (donor-donee identity controls property characterization)
- Thompson v. Woods, 525 So.2d 174 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988) (burden to prove simulation; consideration defeats simulation)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La.1989) (standard for reviewing trial court factual findings)