Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; November 20, 2007; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The trial court ordered John Turner to specifically perform an agreement to sell two acres of land to Laura Kelly Hancock, a decision John appealed. Laura, a close friend of John's wife Fern, expressed interest in purchasing the land where John's son Don had been living. After Don moved, Laura and John executed an agreement, referred to as an "Affidavit," on April 30, 2003, stating that Laura would pay $2,000 for the two acres. Laura paid the amount via a check deposited into a joint account owned by John and Fern, which was used for their living expenses, without any refund to Laura.
The Affidavit indicated that a formal deed would be executed after a survey. Shortly after signing, Laura moved her mobile home onto the property and began residing there, with John's and Fern's tacit approval. Laura later arranged for a survey in November 2003, but John refused to execute the deed and issued an eviction notice in January 2004, prompting Laura to file for specific performance.
John contended the property description in the Affidavit was insufficient and claimed the sale price was lesionary. Laura countered that if the sale was invalid, she deserved reimbursement for her reliance on the agreement. The trial court upheld the validity of the Affidavit, ruling that the evidence, including testimony and the survey, clearly defined the property in question. The court found Laura's and Fern's testimonies credible and dismissed John's lesion argument, noting that his appraisal was outdated and did not include the specific two acres. The trial court's decision was subsequently appealed.
La. C.C. art. 2462 permits specific performance of contracts for the sale of immovables when the contract is in writing, signed, and clearly specifies the property and price. The determination of the sufficiency of property descriptions and the admissibility of parol evidence are fact-intensive inquiries. In *City Bank and Trust of Shreveport v. Scott*, the court established that if a contract must be in writing, parol evidence is inadmissible unless the written document is lost or destroyed. Parol evidence can be used to clarify an ambiguous description of immovable property but cannot entirely identify it; the written description must substantially support the title. The court emphasized that parol evidence is only allowed when the written description sufficiently distinguishes the property from others, as affirmed in *Kernan v. Baham*.
In *City Bank*, the description "vacant land, 21 acres, Gilliam, Louisiana" was deemed too vague to warrant parol evidence. Conversely, in *Wilson v. Head*, a buy-sell agreement describing the property with a specific municipal address and acreage allowed for the admission of extrinsic evidence, as it indicated a mutual intent to identify the property. The current case differs from *City Bank*, as several factors support the inclusion of parol evidence to further define the property in question.
The Affidavit enabled precise identification of a 2-acre parcel, with a survey confirming its legal description. Testimony indicated that John’s son was present during the survey, while John was shown the survey flags without expressing any objections. Following Don and his wife's departure in mid-May 2003, Laura moved her mobile home onto the property and occupied it peacefully until January 2004, connecting to existing utilities without objection from John. John made no efforts to remove Laura or collect rent, even visiting her at the site, and Laura paid $2,000 to John and Fern for the property, which was never refunded. The trial court found Laura's and Fern's testimonies credible, affirming that all parties were aware of the sale agreement before the Affidavit's execution. The court deemed parol evidence admissible for describing the property in the Affidavit and concluded that the 2-acre site occupied by Laura matched the parcel intended for sale. John’s argument regarding the sales price being lesionary was rejected, as the trial court found the appraisal too outdated and irrelevant to the specific parcel. Consequently, the trial court's judgment for specific performance and dismissal of John's eviction claim was affirmed, with references to similar cases in support of its decision.
