132 So. 3d 470
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- GCC bought about 6.375 acres in 1988 from Messinger for $39,000, with a mortgage balance of $29,000 and a community center building later erected on the land.
- In December 1991, Mattie Calep and Frank Calep (residents of Chicago) sent a $25,000 check to Messinger; Wayne Webb notarized a deed of cash sale from GCC to the Caleps for $25,000, recording a sale on December 31, 1991 and an assignment of the mortgage note to the Caleps in March 1992.
- Webb testified Fields signed the 1991 cash sale, though he did not recall the closing; he required identification and the witnesses were in his office; he believed GCC did not receive cash, only release of the mortgage balance.
- Fields claimed the $25,000 was a gift to GCC and that she did not sign the documents; in 1998 Webb advised Fields that the Caleps claimed ownership.
- GCC filed suit in August 2011 seeking declaratory judgment that the 1991 cash sale was fraudulent and that GCC possessed or held title; the Caleps moved for summary judgment, supported by Webb’s affidavit and GCC’s board resolution authorizing the sale; the district court denied summary judgment before trial on sanctions.
- The district court ultimately found no forgery and sanctioned GCC under La. C.C.P. art. 863 D, dismissing GCC’s declaratory judgment action and ordering GCC to pay the Caleps’ attorney fees; Fields appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1991 cash sale is an authentic act proving GCC’s title | Fields argues the sale was forged and not signed by GCC | Caleps rely on the authentic act and board resolution to prove the sale | Yes; the act is authentic and proves the sale; no manifest forgery shown |
| Whether Fields bore the burden to prove forgery and who forged if any | Fields did not sign; she lacks expert to prove forgery | Fields failed to identify forgery or any forger; burden on Fields | Fields failed to prove forgery; district court not plainly wrong to dismiss and sanction |
| Whether sanctions and attorney fees were proper under Article 863 | Sanctions improper because the sale is authentic and Fields contested in good faith | Sanctions warranted based on lack of evidentiary support and improper purpose; fees awarded | Sanctions affirmed; GCC to pay attorney fees |
| Whether GCC has standing to appeal in a corporate capacity | Fields appeals in her individual capacity; corporate standing questioned | Appeal should be dismissed as filed by an individual not the corporation | Court did not dismiss on standing; proceeding affirmed on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Ritz v. Ritz, 669 So.2d 395 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1996) (strong proof required to attack an authentic act; forgery burden on claimant)
- Succession of Robinson, 654 So.2d 682 (La. 1995) (authentic act constitutes full proof of the agreement against heirs and successors)
- Szmyd v. Wingate, 341 So.2d 1271 (La.App. 2 Cir.) (burden on party denying forgery; lack of forensic evidence weakens claim)
- Coleman v. Egle, 379 So.2d 15 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1980) (forgery burden on signer of authentic act)
- Thompson v. Woods, 525 So.2d 174 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1988) (forgery burden and proof standards)
- Deal v. Lexing-Powell, 824 So.2d 541 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2002) (standing and procedural posture considerations on appeal)
- Seelig v. Kit World Super Store, 705 So.2d 806 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1998) (standing and procedural issues on appeal)
- Manichia v. Mahoney, 45 So.3d 618 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2010) (pro se litigant burden of proof)