Eschete v. Eschete, 142 So. 3d 985

This appeal challenges a judgment declaring a donation inter vivos null for lack of form.
Mr. Eschete donated his one-half interest in the marital home to Ms. Eschete on November 8, 2010.
A divorce was granted on June 13, 2011; a nullity petition was filed December 14, 2011 asserting defects in execution.
The petition alleged the act was signed at the law office of Rebecca Robichaux, outside the presence of a notary and two witnesses, with some copies showing only donor and donee signatures.
At trial, conflicting testimony concerned whether the act was executed before the notary and witnesses and whether donor and donee signed at the same time and place.
On appeal, Eschete argues (1) lack of signing in the presence of a notary and witnesses, (2) insufficient evidence to overcome authenticity presumption, and (3) misapplication of interspousal donation rules requiring simultaneous signing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the act executed before a notary and in the presence of two witnesses?	Eschete contends signing did not occur in the required presence.	Eschete acknowledges signatures but disputes simultaneous presence of all participants.	No; the act failed authentication due to separation preventing observation.
Did the evidence overcome the presumption of genuineness of the authentic act?	Eschete argues evidence shows lack of proper execution.	Eschete's testimony is insufficient to overcome the presumption of authenticity.	No; the Court upheld the authenticity presumption and sustained nullity.
Should interspousal donation requirements (same time/place) apply to this act?	Argues Article 1747 mandates same time/place signing; failure should void act.	Majority applies standard authentic act rules; Article 1747 not controlling here.	The act is not void solely for lack of same-time/place signing under Article 1747, but the act was still invalid under authentic act rules in this case.

Hardin v. Williams, 468 So.2d 1302 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1985) (strict adherence to authentic act requirements; presence of notary and witnesses observed)
Meltzer v. Meltzer, 662 So.2d 58 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1995) (strong convincing proof required to overcome authenticity presumption)
Brumfield v. Brumfield, 457 So.2d 763 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1984) (signatories and witnesses must be present to witness signatures)
Finance Sec. Co. v. Williams, 42 So.2d 902 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1949) (substantial compliance doctrine questioned; emphasis on strict authentic act standards)
Zamjahn v. Zamjahn, 839 So.2d 309 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2003) (notary and witnesses must witness contracting signatures)
Bonnett v. Mize, 556 So.2d 228 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1990) (confirms strict compliance with authentic act requirements)