William Brumfield v. Tom Darrick Berry And Charlette Annette Green

Supreme Court of Louisiana
November 19, 2025
Chief Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
WILLIAM BRUMFIELD
VS.
TOM DARRICK BERRY AND CHARLETTE
ANNETTE GREEN
No. 2025-CC-01090
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: Tom Darrick Berry - Applicant Defendant; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) C-731680, Court
of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2025 CW 0370;
_ _ _ _ _ _
November 19, 2025
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JMG
JLW
JDH
WJC
JBM
PDG
CRC
11/19/2025 "See News Release 051 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No. 2025-CC-01090
WILLIAM BRUMFIELD
VS.
TOM DARRICK BERRY AND CHARLETTE ANNETTE GREEN
On Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PER CURIAM
In 2018, Charlotte Green executed an act of donation transferring property to
William Brumfield. In 2023, Ms. Green sold this property to Tom Darrick Berry.
Mr. Brumfield then filed a suit for injunctive and declaratory relief against
Mr. Berry and Ms. Green. Mr. Berry filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting
the 2018 act of donation was not recorded at the time of his purchase and could not
affect his interests as a third-party purchaser. Mr. Brumfield opposed the motion on
the ground there were questions of fact as to whether Mr. Berry had knowledge of
the act of donation and Mr. Brumfield’s possession of the property , despite the
failure to record the act of donation.
The district court denied the motion for summary judgment, and the court of
appeal denied supervisory relief. Mr. Berry seeks review in this court.
The undisputed facts establish the 2018 act of donation was not recorded at
the time Mr. Berry purchased the property. Pursuant to La. Civ. Code art. 3338, an
instrument which transfers immovable property is “without effect as to a third person
unless the instrument is registered by recording it in the appropriate mortgage or
conveyance records. . . .”
Mr. Brumfield asserts summary judgment is inappropriate because there are
questions of fact over Mr. Berry’s actual knowledge of the act of donation. However,
in Phillips v. Parker , 483 So. 2d 972, 975 –76 (La. 1986), we held, “[f]rom the

2

standpoint of the operation of the public records doctrine, knowledge is an irrelevant
consideration.” See also Cimarex Energy Co. v. Mauboules, 2009-1170 (La. 4/9/10),
40 So.3d 931, 944 (explaining third persons “can rely on the absence from the public
records of those interests that are required to be recorded.”).
In the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, the district court erred in
denying Mr. Berry’s motion for summary judgment.1 That judgment is reversed.

DECREE
For the reasons assigned, the writ is granted and made peremptory. The
judgment of the district court is reversed, and summary judgment is rendered in favor
of Tom Darrick Berr y holding that his rights as a third -party purchaser are not
affected by the unrecorded 2018 donation. The case is remanded to the district court
for further proceedings.

1 Mr. Berry also argues that the act of donation was an absolute nullity because it was not in
authentic form. Because of our finding that the act was not properly recorded, we pretermit any
discussion of its validity.