Laspopoulos v. Earl
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., June 26, 1964 163 So. 2d 442; La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., March 10, 1975 310 So. 2d 662
Laspopoulos v. Earl, 376 So. 2d 965 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979).
Cited by
- Montesino v. Arguello 433 So. 2d 383 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
- Vallaire v. Lee 430 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Opinion text
REDMANN, Judge. A mortgagee of an immovable appeals from a preliminary injunction against executory process. The mortgagee testified that he had not yet given the mortgagor husband the loan at the time the act of mortgage was passed in the notary’s office but did give it to him at the mortgagee’s office later that day, after the mortgagor wife left. Thus the mortgagee concedes that the act is wrong. The result is that the mortgagors’ parol evidence is admissible and the contest is one of credibility. That parol evidence, including that of a witness to the act and to the previous arrangement between the parties, indicates that the mortgage was always a sham to forestall the mortgagors’ creditors, and that the mortgagors got no money, did not appear at the same time to execute the act, and did not issue the mortgage note (it was to be retained by the notary). The mortgagee’s sound legal position that parol is inadmissible to disprove the essential recitals of a written contract, C.C. 2238, is not dispositive because the mortgagee himself testified, without objecting to being asked the question, that the written contract was wrong in its recital that he had loaned defendants money. Affirmed. *966 Before REDMANN, GULOTTA and STOULIG, JJ.