Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. Smith, 119 So. 2d 827.

32 citing documents.

Britton v. Williams 914 So. 2d 1151 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Succession of Venture 682 So. 2d 988 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
(1960), the supreme court stated: Since contracts between spouses are specifically forbidden by Articles 1790 and 2446 of the Civil Code, save for the three purposes detailed in Article 2446, it follows that any husband and wife who attempt to contract in violation of those restrictions do so in f
Succession of Montgomery 506 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Dellinger v. Dellinger 504 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
-830 (1960), our Supreme Court stated as follows: It is well settled that dations between husband and wife, being a species of sale (Articles 2655-2659, Civil Code), are exceptional contracts and are absolutely null unless they come within one of the permissible categories_ Since contracts between
Waterbury v. Waterbury 496 So. 2d 1374 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
(1960); Ingram v. Freeman, supra, and the cases cited therein."
Hollier v. Galtier 430 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
Boagni v. Waterbury 403 So. 2d 856 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
(1960); Ingram v. Freeman, supra, and the cases cited therein.
Gerchow v. Gerchow 398 So. 2d 1201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
James v. James 393 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Ann. 11 (New Orleans, 1861); , (1960).
Little v. Little 391 So. 2d 1213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
829 & 830 (1960) and the long line of jurisprudence that followed: “...
Hall v. Allred 385 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Smith v. Smith, 239 La.2d 688, (1960); (3rd Cir., 1976), writs den.
Bertrand v. Bourque 366 So. 2d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
To facilitate justice, our courts have held that: “[if] one alleging a simulation produces evidence of circumstances which create highly reasonable doubts or suspicions as to the honesty of the transaction, a prima facie case is considered as having been made out, and the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to show that a valid sale existed.”
Lane v. Lane 375 So. 2d 660 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
Johnson v. McCorvey 344 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
Williams v. Smith 340 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
Ingram v. Freeman 326 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
Teche Concrete, (La.App.
Whitten v. Whitten 303 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1974
"Again, , (1960), Chief Justice McCaleb, in commenting on the admissibility of parol with regard to contracts in fraudem legis, stated: "`* * * If parol evidence is admissible to show fraud practiced on one of the contracting parties, it would, a fortiori, appear that it should be received when the fraud has bee
Placid Oil Company v. Taylor 291 So. 2d 892 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
1085 , (1952); , (1960).
C. I. T. Leasing Corp. v. Bar-Tender of Louisiana, Inc. 258 So. 2d 228 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Williams v. Collier 249 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
* * * ” ( ) Again, , (1960), Chief Justice Mc-Caleb, in commenting on the admissibility of parol with regard to contracts in fraudem legis, stated: “ * * * If parol evidence is admissible to show fraud practiced on one of the contracting parties, it would, a. fortiori, appear that it should be received when the .
Succession of Daste 223 So. 2d 848 La. 1969
(1960); Bagala v. Bagala, 237 La.
Succession of Elrod v. Elrod 218 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1969
(1960); Dietz v. Dietz, 227 La.
Joyner v. Batchelor 206 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
Wisinger v. Wisinger 192 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
“Our Supreme Court, in the case of Smith vs. Smith, , , has held that any husband and wife who attempt a contract of sale between themselves in regard to a transfer of property in violation of the three permissible categories set forth in Civil Code Article 2446, do so in fraudem legis; and in the case of Robinson v. Allen, [La.App.], , the Co
Nelson v. Walker 189 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
1085 , , Smith v. Smith (1960), , ; and Lloyd v. Register (La.1966), .
Lloyd v. Register 184 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
1085 , , and Smith v. Smith (1960) , .
Teche Concrete, Inc. v. Moity 168 So. 2d 347 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
For, , , 831: "This Court has recognized that simulation, because of its nature, can usually be proven only by indirect and circumstantial evidence * * * [Citations omitted.], so that, if one alleging a simulation produces evidence of circumstances which create highly reasonable doubts or suspicions as to the
Dare v. Myrick 168 So. 2d 845 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1964
(1960); , La.App., 2d Cir. 1957; , La.App., 3d Cir. 1961; , La.App., 2d Cir. 1961 (writs denied).
Foster v. Smith 159 So. 2d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
the court stated: “It is well settled that dations between husband and wife, being a species of sale (Articles 2655-2659, Civil Code), are exceptional contracts and are absolutely null unless they come within one of the permissible categories.
Broussard v. Broussard 132 So. 2d 85 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
155 ; Howard v. Howard, supra; , ; Burch v. Nichols, La.App.
Johnston v. Bearden 127 So. 2d 319 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
In commenting upon the burden of proof in that regard, the court, , , made this further observation: "This Court has recognized that simulation, because of its nature, can usually be proven only by indirect and circumstantial evidence (Summers & Bannin v. Clarke, 32 La.Ann.
Burch v. Nichols 126 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Counter letters can have no effect against creditors or bona fide purchasers; they are valid as to all others; but forced heirs shall have the same right to anul absolutely and by pa'rol' evidence the simulated contracts of those‘'from whom they inherit, and shall not be restricted to the legitimate (ligitime).” In the recent case of Smith v. Smith, 1960, , , the Supreme Court said: “It"’ ;is 'well Settled 'that dations between husband and wife, being a spe- *715 cíes of sale (Articles 2655-2659

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by