Paul Johnson v. Shannon Iverson

Judgment rendered November 20, 2024.
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 55,946-CA

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

PAUL JOHNSON Plaintiff-Appellant

versus

SHANNON IVERSON Defendant-Appellee

*****

Appealed from the
Second Judicial District Court for the
Parish of Bienville, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 45,909

Honorable William R. Warren, Judge

*****

ROSS LAW FIRM Counsel for Appellant
By: James E. Ross, Jr.

HAMPTON LAW FIRM, LLC Counsel for Appellee
By: Judith Layne Hampton-Kozik

*****

Before PITMAN, ROBINSON, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

ROBINSON, J.

In this action to revoke an irrevocable inter vivos donation of

immovable property from an uncle to his nephew, the uncle appeals the

judgment denying his claim. For the following reasons, we affirm the

judgment.

FACTS

Paul Johnson (“Johnson”), the maternal uncle of Shannon Iverson

(“Iverson”), was born in 1951 and is the youngest child of his parents, who

owned property located in Ringgold, Louisiana. In 1967, his parents

constructed a new home (“the house”) on the property. Iverson, who was

born that same year, lived in the house for the first four years of his life with

his mother, his maternal grandparents, and Johnson.

Johnson began paying the mortgage on the house after his father died

in 1982. It took him ten years to pay the remaining balance of $15,000. He

lived in the house off and on until his mother died in 1995. He moved to

Baton Rouge in 1996 to work as a heavy equipment operator.

According to the parties, the property had been passed down through

generations. There was a partition in kind of the property in 2009. Johnson

received two tracts, including the tract with the house.

Johnson was diagnosed with cancer in 2015. Iverson came from his

home in El Dorado, Arkansas, to check Johnson into the hospital and to stay

with him. When Johnson was discharged from the hospital after a week,

Iverson took his uncle back to his home in Denham Springs, Louisiana,

before returning to El Dorado.

Johnson moved into Iverson’s home in El Dorado in 2016. He was

provided with his own room and meals. He did not pay rent or utilities,

although he testified that he gave $200 to Iverson’s wife each time that he

received his check.

On June 10, 2016, Johnson executed a donation deed in which he

donated the two tracts in Ringgold to Iverson. The deed stated that the

donation was irrevocable and was for and in consideration of the love and

affection which Johnson had for Iverson. The donation was executed before

Farmerville attorney Judith Hampton.

Shortly thereafter, Johnson fell and injured himself after allegedly

smoking synthetic marijuana with a neighbor. When Iverson learned of this,

he told his uncle that he could not use drugs while living there. Believing

that he was no longer welcome and feeling uncomfortable at his nephew’s

home, Johnson moved out.

On October 19, 2021, Johnson filed a petition to revoke the donation.

He alleged that although the donation stated it was irrevocable, there was no

meeting of the minds because at the time it was signed, he had no intention

to make the donation irrevocable, he was not advised that the donation’s

language made the donation irrevocable, and he did not understand that the

deed stated that the donation was irrevocable.

He further alleged that the donation failed for lack of consideration.

He made the donation to show appreciation for Iverson helping with his care

when he was ill. Further, Iverson breached their agreement by failing to

keep the house in good repair, keep cows on the land, make periodic

2

monetary payments to Johnson, and to take care of Johnson’s funeral

expenses.

Johnson additionally alleged that Iverson had made verbal threats

against him which caused him to fear that Iverson or a member of Iverson’s

family would harm him. He contended this cruel treatment amounted to

ingratitude sufficient to revoke the donation.

Finally, Johnson alleged that Iverson helped Johnson while he was ill

solely in an attempt to manipulate Johnson into giving the property to

Iverson. Iverson knew or should have known that Johnson was under the

influence of strong medicines when he signed the donation which he had not

prepared. Johnson did not sign the donation with a full understanding that it

was irrevocable.

In addition to the revocation of the donation, Johnson sought $50,000

in damages to repair the home because Iverson had breached his promise to

do so.

Trial

A bench trial was held in this matter on July 7, 2023.

Paul Johnson testified that Iverson was one of his favorite nephews.

He cosigned the loan for Iverson’s first car. He recalled that after he

returned home from the hospital, he saw Iverson in the audience at his

Denham Springs church. Later that day, Iverson cried as he told Johnson

that he had grandchildren. Johnson later learned that Iverson was

experiencing marital problems. Iverson began calling Johnson on a regular

basis and eventually convinced him to move to El Dorado, where he would

live with Iverson, his wife, and two adult sons.

3

Johnson testified that Iverson came up with the idea of making a new

will. He told his uncle that his prior will was not sufficient because it

needed an accurate description of the property.

When asked whose idea it was to make the donation, Johnson

responded that Iverson said he wanted the property to go to him, despite

Johnson having a daughter. Johnson recalled an instance when Iverson tore

up a photo of Johnson’s daughter before he could see it, which he took as an

example of Iverson not wanting anyone else to get close to him. Johnson

desired to give the property to Iverson out of love and affection because he

was a favorite nephew.

Johnson insisted that he did not call Hampton’s office to prepare the

donation. He also did not pay Hampton’s fee. While he knew that Iverson’s

son was driving him to Farmerville to execute the donation, he did not see

the donation before he arrived at Hampton’s office. He recalled that once

there, Hampton briefly explained some things. He claimed that the

document was not read to him before he signed it. He did not read it himself

before signing it. Johnson also claimed that one of the witnesses signed for

the other witness who was absent.

Johnson understood that he was giving ownership of the land and

minerals to Iverson. However, he did not know what irrevocable meant

when he signed the donation, and he would not have signed it had he known

what it meant. He did not intend for the donation to be irrevocable, and

nobody explained to him that it was at the signing.

Johnson believed that Iverson and his family began treating him

differently once Iverson received what he wanted. Although they never said

4

anything to make him feel uncomfortable or unwelcome in their house, he

felt that way because Iverson and his son Seneca frowned or gave him angry

looks when Johnson was around. In Johnson’s view, he felt like he had been

“kicked to the curb.” He moved out of his own free will because of the way

he felt treated there.

After the donation, Iverson gave away two horses belonging to

Johnson that had been pastured on the property. The two horses, along with

Iverson’s horse, had escaped when a relative on adjoining property had

removed a fence.

Johnson testified that Iverson sent him $100 on three occasions prior

to the donation. Iverson sent $1,000 to Johnson after he moved out.

Johnson denied ever using any illegal drugs; however, he admitted to

smoking marijuana during his life, although never at Iverson’s home.

Johnson testified that he showed love to Iverson and expected the

same in return, but did not receive it. He also expected Iverson to care for

the property like he had done. He explained that he and Iverson had

discussed that Iverson would do some things to take care of the property.

However, he never gave Iverson a list of things that needed to be done.

Johnson testified that he spent time on the property after the partition

and through 2015. Although the house is now in a state of disrepair, that

was not the case prior to the donation. While the roof needed to be replaced,

he considered the house to have been in a very livable, albeit not

“comfortable,” condition before the donation, and he asserted that two

people lived there prior to 2015. The utilities were on and the property taxes

were paid. Iverson had received $1,000 in timber proceeds before the

5

donation, and to Johnson’s dismay, did not use the money to repair the

house.

Johnny Davis, a carpenter from Arkansas, testified that Johnson asked

him to prepare an estimate of the cost to repair the house. He went to the

property in October of 2021, when he examined the house and took

photographs, which were admitted into evidence. He estimated that it would

cost $70,000 in labor and materials to make the house livable again.

Michael Bryant, a friend of Johnson’s for more than 40 years, testified

that Johnson is a truthful man who always tries to help loved ones. He

learned about the donation from Iverson, who showed him the deed. While

he never witnessed any verbal argument or physical fight between Johnson

and Iverson, he believed that Johnson felt discontent at the way he had been

treated.

Shannon Iverson testified that he and Johnson spent a lot of time

together when he was growing up. Johnson is his favorite uncle, and

Johnson said he was his favorite nephew. Iverson denied that Johnson

cosigned a vehicle loan for him.

Iverson recalled that he told Johnson to write a will leaving the

property to his cousins Tony and Roderick because they had grown closer to

their uncle.

Iverson testified that about a month after Johnson’s surgery, he moved

his uncle to El Dorado because he was complaining that he was being

mistreated in Denham Springs. Johnson was provided with his own room

and three meals a day.

6

Iverson testified that they only discussed the Ringgold property when

Johnson became angry because Roderick had messed up the property. He

claimed that he did not ask Johnson for the property and told him to give it

to Roderick or Tony, but Johnson said that he wanted him to have it. He

accepted the property because it had sentimental value, and his grandparents

had worked hard to pay for the land.

Iverson testified that Johnson made the call to set up the appointment

for the donation. Johnson told him that he had gotten a lawyer. Iverson

believed this occurred one or two months after Johnson had moved to El

Dorado. He denied giving Hampton’s name or phone number to his uncle.

Iverson denied that he and Johnson discussed repairing the house or

that the donation came with conditions. He made no representations to

Johnson that he would make any repairs. Johnson told him to keep the

money from the timber sale, and he never intended to use that money to do

anything to the house. He felt it was not his responsibility since Roderick

had messed up the house. He has made no repairs to the house, and if he

ever does it will be on his schedule.

Regarding what happened to the horses, Iverson testified that some

horses that he and his uncle owned together escaped when an aunt had her

fence removed. He eventually gave two horses to a neighbor so he would

not have to worry about the horses getting loose on nearby roads and

endangering motorists.

Iverson acknowledged that he never thanked Johnson for the donation.

He thought Johnson lived in his home for six to eight months. He did not

ask Johnson to leave his home in El Dorado, but merely told him not to use

7

drugs in his house. He thought Johnson left a week later. Iverson claimed

that Johnson was using drugs at his house, and that he started using

marijuana about two weeks after moving there. Johnson used it mostly in

the garage. Iverson cited the incident with the synthetic marijuana as an

example of his drug use. He also testified that he had seen marijuana in

Johnson’s possession as well as him using marijuana at Iverson’s house. He

added that he has seen his uncle use marijuana for the last 40 years.

Iverson described his uncle as being full of fun when he was not using

drugs. They got along for the most part, and he never argued with or yelled

at Johnson while he was living with him in El Dorado.

Tammy Williams has been a legal assistant for Hampton since March

of 2016. She has 33 years of experience as a legal assistant. She witnessed

the donation. She recalled that the other witness, Stacy Hunt, was present

for the execution of the donation.

Williams testified that Hampton asked Johnson if he had any

questions. She remembered that Iverson asked him if that was what he

wanted to do and if he was sure because he had other relatives who could

receive the property. Johnson replied that it was what he wanted to do.

Williams testified that Hampton explained to Johnson what he was

signing, that there was no type of condition, and that he was making the

donation solely out of the love that he had for Iverson. Hampton also

explained that it was an irrevocable donation. Williams recalled that

Hampton asked Johnson if he understood what he was signing and told him

that it could not be undone. Williams added that she had never seen a

donation at Hampton’s firm where any conditions were placed on the donee.

8

She remembered Johnson verbally indicated that he understood what was

going on and that he wanted to donate the property with the understanding

that he could not have it returned to him. She could not remember if it was

Iverson who hired them to facilitate the donation.

Stacy Hart has worked as a land abstractor for Hampton for 14 years.

She was the second witness to the donation. She insisted that she was

present if she signed it. Although she had no recollection of the donation

execution, she explained that it is standard procedure for Hampton to go

over the document, explain it, and make sure the parties understand what

they are doing.

Hart testified that the deed indicated that Tammy Williams typed it

and printed it. She added that although she did not know how Williams

obtained Johnson’s information, Williams could have gotten this information

from one of the parties, from the parish courthouse where the property is

located, or by checking online for a deed with the property description.

Hart believed that Iverson had been at Hampton’s firm for business

prior to the donation. She had no knowledge that Johnson contacted the firm

about preparing the donation deed. She did not know who paid the firm.

Seneca Iverson is Iverson’s older son. He was in his early 30s in 2016

when he lived at home with his parents, brother, and great-uncle. Johnson

spoke with him about the donation. Johnson said he felt Iverson would be

responsible, he (Johnson) was behind on his taxes, and he wanted to give it

to Iverson. Johnson never indicated to Seneca that there were any conditions

for Iverson to fulfill to receive the donation.

9

Seneca did not feel that being behind on taxes was Johnson’s motive

for making the donation. He drove Johnson to Farmerville for the donation.

His understanding was Johnson set up the appointment, but he was not

certain about that. He did not know his father had been a prior client of

Hampton’s firm.

Seneca was present when the donation was executed. He remembered

that Hampton went through the paperwork thoroughly with Johnson, and she

asked him multiple times if he understood what she was saying and if this

was something that he wanted to do. Johnson answered in the affirmative

multiple times and said he wanted to make sure the property went to “Sugar

Pie,” which was his nickname for Iverson.

Seneca thought that he had a great relationship with Johnson as they

spent a lot of time together. He never saw an exchange of harsh words

between his father and Johnson. Seneca testified that after Johnson fell in

the front yard and hurt his head, he learned from a neighbor that Johnson had

been smoking synthetic marijuana which he had obtained from the neighbor.

Johnson had blood above an eyebrow and on his arm. His mother asked

Johnson if he wanted her to bring him to the hospital, but he declined and

said he was fine. When his father returned home from work, he told

Johnson that he would have to leave if he could not stop using drugs.

Seneca had seen Johnson smoke marijuana a few times at a barn located five

to ten miles from their house. Those were the only times that he saw

Johnson smoke marijuana.

10

Seneca thought Johnson left a couple of weeks after the incident

concerning the synthetic marijuana. Iverson was on the road working as a

truck driver when Johnson left.

Shaquille Iverson, Iverson’s younger son, was 24 when he lived with

his family in 2016. He thought that Johnson was treated well, and he never

witnessed any cruel treatment or a verbal or physical altercation between

Johnson and his father. He never saw Johnson doing drugs at their house.

He was not sure why Johnson moved out, but it happened shortly after his

father spoke with Johnson about doing some unacceptable things at the

house. Asked if he had ever seen Iverson maliciously or intentionally cause

Johnson any harm, he answered that all he saw was his father trying to help

all his family members.

At the close of evidence, Hampton put on the record that she was the

attorney and notary on the donation deed. Iverson waived any conflict

created by her representing him. Iverson also acknowledged that she had

suggested another attorney to represent Iverson in this lawsuit.

The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Iverson, concluding that

the donation was valid and was not revoked. The court noted that Johnson

claimed the donation should be revoked on account of ingratitude for: (1)

failing to maintain the property or make repairs; (2) failing to thank Johnson

for the donation; (3) evicting Johnson; and (4) accusing Johnson of doing

drugs. The court concluded that Johnson was not evicted from Iverson’s

home and that the remaining claims made by Johnson did not rise to the

level of ingratitude that could give cause to revoke the donation.

11

DISCUSSION

Johnson, who has new counsel on appeal, argues that the trial court

committed manifest error in failing to consider the issue of Hampton’s

conflict of interest. Johnson further argues that the trial court committed

manifest error in failing to revoke the donation based on ingratitude.

Conflict of interest

Johnson testified that he did not know Hampton, he did not see the

donation before arriving at her office, he did not understand what he was

signing, and he would not have signed it had he known the donation was

irrevocable. Iverson testified that Johnson set up the appointment with

Hampton. Iverson had been a client of Hampton in other matters before the

donation.

Johnson argues that Hampton had a conflict of interest under Rules

1.7 and 8.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that was not addressed by

the trial court and is a ground for setting aside the donation. He contends

that he would have declined the services offered by Hampton had he known

that Iverson had been a prior client and that she was working for Iverson at

the time of the donation when she was representing Johnson’s interest. He

maintains that setting aside the donation is the only reasonable action to take

since Hampton never obtained a waiver from him of the conflict of interest.

We first note that this issue was not addressed by the trial court

because it was not raised at trial by Johnson’s trial attorney and is urged for

the first time on appeal by new counsel. As a general rule, appellate courts

will not consider issues raised for the first time in this court, which are not

pleaded in the court below and which the district court has not addressed.

12

Geiger v. State ex rel. Dept. of Health and Hosp., 01-2206 (La. 4/12/02),

815 So. 2d 80.

Furthermore, whether or not Hampton had a conflict of interest, it did

not affect the validity of the donation. Signatures to obligations are not mere

ornaments. Tweedel v. Brasseaux, 433 So. 2d 133 (La. 1983). The law of

Louisiana is that one who signs an instrument without reading it has no

complaint. Id. It is well settled that a party who signs a written instrument

is presumed to know its contents and cannot avoid its obligations by

contending that he did not read it, that he did not understand it, or that the

other party failed to explain it to him. Aguillard v. Auction Management

Corp., 04-2804 (La. 6/29/05), 908 So. 2d 1.

Johnson was aware of what he was doing when he made the

irrevocable donation. The donation, which Johnson willingly signed, stated

it was irrevocable. Witnesses testified that the nature of the donation was

explained to Johnson. This argument is without merit.

Ingratitude

Johnson contends that Iverson’s ingratitude was shown by his plot to

defraud Johnson of his property and then falsely accuse him of using drugs

to get him out of his El Dorado home.

A donation inter vivos may be revoked because of ingratitude of the

donee. La. C.C. art. 1556. There are two grounds for revocation on the

basis of ingratitude. The first is if the donee has attempted to take the life of

the donor. The second is if the donee has been guilty towards the donor of

cruel treatment, crimes, or grievous injuries. La. C.C. art. 1557.

13

Grievous injuries sufficient to revoke a donation have been defined as

any act naturally offensive to the donor. Porter v. Porter, 36,007 (La. App.

2 Cir. 6/12/02), 821 So. 2d 663. Cruel treatment or grievous injury

sufficient to revoke a gratuitous donation may include adultery by a spouse,

seizing property belonging to a parent, filing suit against a parent alleging

criminal activity, and slandering the memory of the donor. Id.

The trial court was not manifestly erroneous in concluding that the

evidence did not establish the level of ingratitude sufficient to revoke the

donation. Iverson opened his home to Johnson, who was offered room and

board and was not expected to pay rent, for food, or for utilities.

Apparently, the only condition to live there was that Johnson did not use

drugs. Johnson decided to move out because he felt uncomfortable by how

Iverson and Seneca looked at him, and because he felt that Iverson did not

reciprocate his love. While it is unfortunate that their once close relationship

is now strained, hurt feelings in this instance do not rise to the level of cruel

treatment or grievous injuries sufficient to revoke this donation.

CONCLUSION

At Johnson’s costs, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

14