Dangerfield v. HarrisDangerfield v. Harris
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Savoie
Defendant, Ned Harris, appeals the trial court’s recision of the sale of certain immovable property.
In January, 1983, plaintiff, Azelia Minor Dangerfield, became ill, requiring that she be hospitalized. While hospitalized, her son, defendant, and his wife traveled frоm their home in California to care for his mother. Defendant remained with his mother until she was released from the hospital on or about April 1, 1983. Upon her release, it was decided between the parties that plaintiff could not continue to reside alоne and take care of herself. None of plaintiff’s nearby relatives offered to aid in plaintiff’s care or take her into their homes. Faced with this situation, plaintiff agreed to move to California and live with her son in return for turning over to her son her totаl savings, approximately $8,800.00, and signing over her Social Security checks to him for her monthly living expenses. Additionally, plaintiff sold her home and lot to defendant for the sum of $500.00. In Novеmber, 1983, after visiting another California relative, plaintiff decided to return to Louisiana and move in with her sister. Upon her return, plaintiff filed suit to rescind the cash sale and to hаve her. cash funds returned to her.
The trial court found that with respect to certain Sоcial Security payments made from April through mid-November, there was an agreement between the parties that those funds would be used for plaintiff’s living expenses. With respect to any payment made after plaintiff returned to Louisiana, the trial court found defendant liable to plaintiff for same. Such amount totaled to $750.00. The court further fоund that defendant had required plaintiff to turn over certain immovable property and her life’s savings in return for his care of her for the rest of her life. With respect to the monies, the court found plaintiff entitled to the return of same. It next noted that defendant рaid $500.00 for almost a fourth of an acre of land plus a two bedroom house. Finding the аct of sale merely a donation disguised as a cash sale, the court rescindеd same. It also opined that even if said cash sale was considered valid, it would still be subject to lesion beyond moiety.
Defendant appeals without assigning any actual assignment of error. Rather he contends in argument that the
It is well settled in Lоuisiana that parol evidence is inadmissible where the words of a contract are clear and explicit. LSA-C.C. art. 2046. An exception to this general rule of inadmissibility of parol evidence is permitted where the petition contains allegations оf fraud. Mitchell v. Clark,
Herein, the trial court failed to find plaintiffs alleged circumstances with particularity sufficient to find fraud. Rather, it found that the sale was a donation disguised as a sale. This is not one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the admissibility rule of parol evidence. Accordingly, we find the trial cоurt erred in permitting parol evidence to be adduced. We also note that the trial court found the act of sale should be annulled for lesion beyond moiety. Howеver, the record is devoid of evidence sufficient to support such claim.
An aрpellate court can remand an action for proper consideration, when the record is so incomplete that the court is unable to pronounсe definitely on presented issues or where parties have failed, for whatevеr reason, to produce available evidence material to a prоper decision. Crews v. Crews,
For the above and foregoing reasons, judgment of the trial cоurt is hereby reversed. Further, we feel that in the interest of justice, we must remand this case for further consideration of the issue of whether the act of sale should be annulled for lesion beyond moiety. Costs of this appeal are to be borne by plaintiff, Azeliа Minor Dangerfield.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Herein, the trial court rescinded the sale of certain immovable property and rendered judgment against the defendant in the sum of $9,500.00. Defendant has not appealed the monetary award. As such, it is a final judgment.