13272 Precedential Processed

Blount v. Blount

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed June 13, 1980 · 385 So. 2d 476

Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 2d Cir., June 22, 1977 348 So. 2d 999

The holding in the court’s own words

We conclude that the agreement was intended to be a community property settlement and that any ambiguity has been cured by action of the parties.

View full opinion text ↓

Quoted verbatim from the opinion — no paraphrase, nothing generated. Not yet human-reviewed. How we find the holding.

Cited by

Baechle v. Baechle 762 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Bourque v. Vinturella 525 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Cenac v. Cenac 492 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Mullins v. Page 457 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
Bernardi v. Chesson 451 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Ozane v. Ozane 392 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Blount v. Blount 386 So. 2d 358 La. 1980

Authorities cited

Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.

Beatty v. Vining 147 So. 2d 37
Alexander v. STATE DEPT. OF HIGHWAYS 342 So. 2d 1201
Hooper v. Ruiz 144 So. 2d 479

Opinion text

385 So.2d 476 (1980) Sylvia BLOUNT v. Eldon Roy BLOUNT, Sr. No. 13272. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. May 5, 1980. Writ Refused June 13, 1980. *477 Michael W. Lee, Livingston, for plaintiff. Ralph L. Roy, Baton Rouge, for defendant. Before ELLIS, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ. PONDER, Judge. In this suit for specific performance, defendant appealed. The issues are the validity of the community property settlement, lesion and prescription. We affirm. Plaintiff and defendant, wife and husband, were legally separated in 1968. They entered into a notarized agreement by which, among other things, defendant agreed to convey all of his interest in the immovable property to plaintiff upon her assuming all mortgage payments. Plaintiff paid the mortgage. When defendant refused to convey the property upon demand, she sued for specific performance. Defendant asserts that the agreement was insufficient to be effective as a community property settlement and was invalid because of lesion. We conclude that the agreement was intended to be a community property settlement and that any ambiguity has been cured by action of the parties. The agreement can be attacked for lesion. Beatty v. Vining, 147 So.2d 37 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1962). C.C. Art. 1861(1). [1] However, prescription has accrued by the lapse of four years. C.C. Art. 1876. [2] Furthermore, there was no proof of the values of the community and of the immovable at the time the instrument was signed. To prove lesion the evidence must be clear and exceedingly strong. Alexander v. State, Dept. of Hwys., 342 So.2d 1201 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1977). Emile v. Ruiz, 144 So.2d 479 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1962). *478 Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed at appellant's costs. AFFIRMED. NOTES [1] C.C. Art. 1861(1): "The law, however, will not release a person of full age, and who is under no incapacity, against the effect of his voluntary contracts, on account of such implied error or imposition, except in the two following cases: 1. In partition where there is a difference in the value of the portions to more than the amount of one-fourth to the prejudice of one or [of] the parties; * * *" [2] C.C. Art. 1876: "Actions for lesion are limited to four years, to date from the time of the contract between the persons of full age, and from the age of majority in contracts of minors."