Pamela Raffield Watkins v. Sandra Schexnider

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

CA 09-744

PAMELA RAFFIELD WATKINS

VERSUS

SANDRA SCHEXNIDER

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF CAMERON, NO. 10-17983
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. PLANCHARD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

SHANNON J. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Billy Howard Ezell, J. David Painter, and Shannon J. Gremillion,
Judges.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND RENDERED.

Kevin Joseph Koenig
Raggio, Cappel, Chozen & Berniard
P. O. Box 820
Lake Charles, LA 70602-0820
(337) 436-9481
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant:
Pamela Raffield Watkins

Jonathan Hadley Fontenot
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 4407
Lake Charles, LA 70606
(337) 564-4378
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee:
Sandra Schexnider

GREMILLION, Judge.

The plaintiff, Pamela Raffield Watkins, appeals the judgment in favor

of the defendant, Sandra Schexnider, denying her claim for specific performance of

delivery of immovable property located in Cameron Parish. For the following

reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and render.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In May 2007, Watkins filed a petition for specific performance urging

that Schexnider transfer title to her for a certain piece of property located in Cameron

Parish. Watkins claimed that the conditions of the purchase agreement had been

fulfilled and she was entitled to demand specific performance of the agreement.

Schexnider answered the petition, in proper person. In the answer she

stated multiple times that the sale was of the house only and not the land on which it

was located. Thereafter, she filed a motion a for summary judgment. Watkins filed

a first supplemental and amending petition claiming that the “discussion, negotiations

and representations” between she and Schexnider were such that the purchase

included the land and that in light of her answer, Schexnider was guilty of fraud and

misrepresentations in her negotiations for the sale of the property.

Following a November 2008 trial, the trial court denied Watkins’ claim

for specific performance but awarded Watkins $4,200 for overpayments under the

“Home Purchase Agreement.” Watkins now appeals.

ISSUES

Watkins assigns as error:

1. The trial court’s failure to consider parol evidence to
determine the true object of the buy sell agreement and to
enforce the agreement.

1

2. Alternatively, the trial court erred in failing to find
Schexnider liable for fraud and misrepresentation which
vitiated consent and supports rescission of the entire
contract.

3. The trial court erred in failing to award her reasonable
damages and attorney fees.

DISCUSSION

The contract entered into between Watkins, as the buyer, and

Schexnider, as the seller, states:

Home Purchase Agreement

I Sandra Schednider [sic] agree to let Pam Raffield live in my house at
141 Welch Drive, Hackberry, Louisiana. Pam Raffield agrees to pay the
following $350.00 per month to Beneficial Finance until note is paid in
full. Then the house will be hers. She also agrees to maintain the Farm
Bureau Homeowners Insurance that presently insures the property. Pam
Raffield agrees to handle any normal homeowner expenses.

If Pam fails to pay note she will be asked to vacate the house within 30
days at no cost to Sandra. If anything happens to Sandra Schexnider,
Pam will continue to pay Sharon Vilardi, Sandra’s sister, with the same
agreement.

The agreement was signed by the parties and notarized June 27, 2000.

Watkins regularly paid the note and insurance. The home was destroyed following

Hurricane Rita.

The trial court, in its written reasons for judgment, found no evidence of

fraud or deceit. It further found that the agreement, a private act executed by both

parties, could not be controverted by parol evidence to vary, add to, or contradict the

terms of the contract. The trial court found that the clear wording of the contract

indicated that Watkins was purchasing the house only. The trial court further found

that, pursuant to the contract, once the mortgage was satisfied by the insurance

proceeds, Watkins was no longer under any obligation to continue paying the monthly

2

$350 note. Thus, it refunded her $4,200.

PAROL EVIDENCE

Louisiana Civil Code Article 1848 states:

Testimonial or other evidence may not be admitted to negate or
vary the contents of an authentic act or an act under private signature.
Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, that evidence may be admitted to
prove such circumstances as a vice of consent, or a simulation, or to
prove that the written act was modified by a subsequent and valid oral
agreement.

Although the general rule is that parol evidence will not be allowed in interpreting a

contract, it has been allowed in many instances in order to discern the intention of the

parties in contracts to sell immovable property. A panel of this court recently

summarized the pertinent law regarding contract interpretation in CLK Co., L.L.C. v.

CXY Energy, Inc., 07-834, pp. 8-10 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/19/07), 972 So.2d 1280, 1286-

87, writs denied, 08-0140, 08-0207 (La. 3/14/05), 977 So.2d 932, 937(citations

omitted):

Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. Appellate
review of a question of law simply requires the appellate court to
determine whether the trial court’s conclusion was correct.

The goal of contract interpretation is to determine “the common
intent of the parties.” La.Civ.Code art. 2045. The intent of the parties
to a contract must be determined in accordance with “the plain, ordinary,
and popular sense of the language used in the agreement and by giving
consideration on a practical basis to the instrument in its entirety.”
When the words of a contract are clear, explicit, and lead to no absurd
consequences, the contract must be interpreted within its four corners
and cannot be explained or contradicted by parol evidence. However,
when a word in a contract is not clear, testimony or other evidence may
be considered to determine the parties’ intent and interpret the contract.
. . . [This] rule applies to contacts involving immovable property.

“The words of a contract must be given their generally prevailing
meaning,” and “[w]ords of art and technical terms must be given their
technical meaning when the contract involves a technical matter.”
La.Civ.Code art 2047. Additionally, “[w]ords susceptible of different
meanings must be interpreted as having the meaning that conforms to

3

the object of the contract.” La.Civ.Code art. 2048. Pursuant to
La.Civ.Code art. 2049, a “provision susceptible of different meanings
must be interpreted with a meaning that renders it effective and not with
one that renders it ineffective.”

Generally parol evidence will not be allowed to “wholly identify the

immovable.” City Bank and Trust of Shreveport v. Scott, 575 So.2d 872, 873

(La.App. 2 Cir. 1991). See also Young v. Tolintino, 44,631 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/2/09),

__So.3d __. Parol evidence will be allowed only when the document sufficiently

renders the title discernible from the writing and not essentially from parol evidence.

Id. The description should sufficiently distinguish the property in question “from

other properties so as to allow the conclusion that the mutual or common intent of the

parties to the writing was to deal with the particular property and not another property

of the same kind or quantity.” Id.

There is no doubt that the particular property in question is located at the

municipal address of 141 Welch Drive in Hackberry, Louisiana. However, the

“Home Purchase Agreement” is ambiguous as to the parties’ intent regarding the

underlying land on which the home sits.

A contract is considered ambiguous on the issue of intent when it lacks
a provision bearing on that issue or when the language used in the
contract is uncertain or is fairly susceptible to more than one
interpretation. These rules are applicable even to contracts involving
rights in immovable property[.]

Blanchard v. Pan-OK Prod. Co., Inc., 32,764, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/5/00), 755

So.2d 376, 381, writ denied, 00-1297 (La. 6/23/00), 765 So.2d 1043 (emphasis

added) (citations omitted).

Admittedly, the contract itself refers to the “home” and “house” multiple

times.1 However, it references “the property” in terms of maintaining an insurance

1
We note that the house/home in question is not a mobile home.

4

policy. The agreement was drafted by a lay person. Both parties to the contract have

only high school educations. The very informal nature of the agreement lends to the

average person’s understanding that the inclusion of a municipal address (“141

Welch, Drive, Hackberry, Louisiana”) implies the sale of the house and land on which

it sits. The fact that Schexnider, the person who wrote the contract, is claiming that

the agreement only conveyed the house, yet failed to put any such provision in the

contract, can only be interpreted as ambiguous. It seems clear that if a party intends

to sell only a house and not the land on which it sits, she would so note and provide

for the details of the manner in which the underlying land is to be used. Otherwise,

the home buyer is left in a quandary of having no idea what the terms of the land

rental agreement is, such as when it begins, the cost, the limitations on the land, and

various other matters pertaining to use of another person’s land. This situation surely

leads to absurd consequences as it leaves a buyer susceptible to the landowner’s

whim and further leads to instability of transactions involving immovables.

Accordingly, we find that parol evidence should have been allowed to

determine the true intent of the parties regarding the underlying land. We now

consider the evidence adduced at trial.

Watkins testified that, as of the time of trial, she had resided in the home

for eight years. Watkins testified that Schexnider always indicated that the sale

included the house, its contents, and the land. The house itself was very modest and

in need of repair. Watkins testified that she spent several weeks clearing out the

house and making it suitable for living. She stated that Schexnider walked her around

the property indicating the boundary lines. Watkins stated that Schexnider always

indicated that the sale included the land and that she would have never purchased a

5

home that sat on someone else’s land.

Watkins stated that the agreement entailed monthly payments of $350

that totaled approximately $25,000 and payment of insurance premiums which were

approximately $400 per year. Watkins testified that she paid Schexnider directly

$350 per month, although Beneficial Finance Company was the holder of the note.

Watkins testified that she paid $350 every month from June 2000 through August

2007. She said that the house was completely destroyed following Hurricane Rita’s

landfall in September 2005, but that she and her husband returned to the property the

following February and lived in a FEMA trailer. She testified that she and her

husband began repairing the property. She estimates that they spent approximately

$15,000 repairing the property, but could only provide $9,000 worth of receipts.

Pictures of the remodeled barn that Watkins converted into a living area were

admitted into evidence.

Schexnider testified that she offered Watkins a rent-to-own arrangement.

She admitted that the showed her the boundaries of the property line. She further

admitted that she did not think that she ever conveyed to Watkins that the land did not

go with the house. She admitted that she never told Watkins that she would be able

to charge her rent for the land once Watkins owned the house. She admitted to

drafting the rent-to-own contract. Schexnider testified that she did not mean to fool

Watkins but admitted to not disclosing that the land was not included. Schexnider

testified that she mortgaged the property to pay off some debt incurred during her

divorce and that she just wanted to get out from underneath the note.

Schexnider testified that Watkins never missed a monthly payment and

had paid $2,100 for insurance premiums up until the time the house was destroyed.

6

Schexnider said that following the storm, insurance paid her $17,394 which

Beneficial Finance accepted as full payment of the mortgage. Schexnider admitted

that she refused to disclose this information to Watkins and that the agreement she

entered into with Watkins indicated that when the note was paid in full, the house

would belong to Watkins. Schexnider testified that she continued accepting Watkins’

monthly payments even though the mortgage was satisfied and the house had been

destroyed nine months prior. She stated that the checks she cashed often noted “rent

to own house and property.”

Marla Raffield, Watkins’ daughter-in-law, testified that she was present

the day that Schexnider pointed out the whole property line. Raffield said that

Schexnider indicated a survey would be done once the land was paid for so that

Watkins could “verify her land with the court.” Raffield said that Schexnider never

indicated that she was only selling the house.

Having reviewed all of the evidence, we are certain that, at the time

Watkins and Schexnider confected the “Home Purchase Agreement” the land was

included as part of the sale. Schexnider’s own testimony that the she never informed

Watkins that the sale did not include the land is, by far, the most telling. It seems

Schexnider regretted conveying the property to Watkins once the “note was paid in

full” as she did not expect extinguishment of the mortgage due to the destruction

caused by Hurricane Rita. However, she confected the agreement and Watkins is now

the rightful owner of the land and the buildings that sit upon it.

Pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Articles 1919 and 2089

judgments and decrees pertaining to immovable property are required to describe the

property with particularity. The only legal description of the property in the record

7

is a 1997 donation executed by Schexnider’s sister to Schexnider of her one-half

interest in the property. That description reads as follows:

Lot Three (3) of Prairie View Subdivision, a subdivision of the West 5
acres of the West 40 acres of Section Forty-two (42), Township Twelve
(12) South, Range Ten (10) West, Parish of Cameron, State of
Louisiana.

FRAUD/ ATTORNEYS FEES/DAMAGES

These assignments of error are rendered moot insofar as we have found

that the original agreement included the land. We decline to award Watkins’ claims

for attorneys fees and damages.

CONCLUSION

We render judgment in favor of the Plaintiff-Appellant, Pamela Raffield

Watkins and order specific performance in that title to the aforementioned property,

including the land and buildings thereon, be conveyed to Watkins. We affirm that

portion of the trial court’s judgment awarding Watkins $4,200 for overpayments. All

costs of this appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Appellant, Sandra Schexnider.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND RENDERED.

8