Heb Louisiana Investments, LLC v. Julius Joseph Gaspard

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-1019

HEB LOUISIANA INVESTMENTS, LLC, ET AL.

VERSUS

JULIUS JOSEPH GASPARD

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF ACADIA, NO. 2008-10982
HONORABLE MARILYN C. CASTLE, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

OSWALD A. DECUIR
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Oswald A. Decuir, Billy Howard Ezell, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Charles M. Rush
Attorney at Law
202 Magnate Drive
Lafayette, LA 70508
(337) 235-2425
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS:
HEB Louisiana Investments, LLC
Betty Lois Leblanc Arceneaux

Lamont P. Domingue
Voorhies & Labbé
P. O. Box 3527
Lafayette, LA 70502-3527
(337) 232-9700
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE:
Julius Joseph Gaspard

DECUIR, Judge.

Betty LeBlanc Arceneaux and HEB Louisiana Investments, L.L.C. (―HEB‖)

filed a petition for rent and revenues and for an accounting against Julius Joseph

Gaspard, the longtime apparent owner of a tract of land located in Acadia Parish

and used as a trailer park. After considering the evidence presented, the trial court

found HEB owned a fifty percent interest in the property and was entitled to a

share in the revenues for the time period in which it has owned an interest.

Dissatisfied with this result, Arceneaux and HEB lodged this appeal. For the

following reasons, we affirm.

The record reveals the following facts. Arceneaux and Gaspard were

married in 1951 and had five children. They divorced in 1969. Prior to the

divorce, they attempted to settle their debts and divide their property fairly.

Community debts consisted of loans from both of their fathers and a mortgage on

the property at issue herein. On August 6, 1968, Arceneaux and Gaspard filed a

joint suit for declaratory judgment in which they asserted the property was

scheduled to be sold at public auction on the following day and the proceeds would

be used to pay community debts. In her testimony in the present case, Arceneaux

admitted the sale took place, and the property was purchased by Gaspard for a fair

price.

For the next thirty-nine years, Arceneaux had nothing to do with the

property, and Gaspard treated it as his own, managing the trailer park and making

whatever improvements he saw fit. In 2007, Gaspard received an offer to purchase

the property for $140,000.00. It was then discovered that no proces verbal had

been recorded for the 1968 sheriff’s sale. When Arceneaux was asked to sign

corrective documents, she refused. Gaspard responded by filing a motion to

amend the 1969 community property partition.

Gaspard’s motion was ultimately denied, but in the meantime, Arceneaux

sold any interest she may have, or will have, in the property to HEB, a company

organized by two of the couple’s five children. In an effort to resolve any further

disputes, Arceneaux and Gaspard ratified the 1969 community property settlement.

Gaspard then relinquished a 50% interest in the subject property to Arceneaux,

with the understanding that it would go to their children through HEB. The parties

also agreed that each of their five children would own a 20% share in HEB and

that HEB would agree to sell the property.

Subsequent to this 2007 agreement, HEB sought to gather information about

the subject property and half the rental income collected monthly by Gaspard.

Ultimately, HEB, along with Arceneaux, filed this petition for rent, revenues, and

an accounting. The trial court heard testimony and determined that HEB became

the owner of a 50% interest in the property in 2007 and is therefore entitled to 50%

of all revenues generated by the property, minus any expenses incurred by Gaspard

in managing the trailer park. The trial court awarded HEB half of forty-one

months of rental income at $690.00 per month beginning in 2007, minus $1,825.00

in expenses. In this appeal, Arceneaux contends that she is owed rental income

from the time of her divorce in 1969 up to the time she transferred her interest in

the property to HEB in 2007.

Our review of the record reveals no error in the decision rendered by the trial

court. The court determined that the parties divided their property in 1968, and

Gaspard made an equalizing payment to Arceneaux at that time. While the public

records do not accurately reflect that transaction, the testimony and evidence

presented to the trial court support the finding that the parties agreed Gaspard

would buy out Arceneaux’s share in the subject property. As between the parties,

this agreement was valid and enforceable, and the trial court found Arceneaux had

2

no ownership interest in the property from 1968 through 2007. In a colloquy

between the bench and counsel, the trial court pointed out that Arceneaux’s belief

that she owns an interest may have some merit if this were a case involving a third

party’s reliance on the public records, but in the case of an agreement between the

former spouses who owned the property as part of the community, the public

records are immaterial.

The record also shows the parties intended to transfer a portion of the

property to their children in 2007. In July of 2007, Arceneaux sold her interest to

HEB for the price of $1.00. Then, in August of 2007, the trial court issued a

judgment stating that Arceneaux and Gaspard each owned a 50% undivided

interest in the property. At the same time, HEB, which acquired Arceneaux’s

share through after-acquired title, was ordered ―to agree to sell said property.‖

This 2007 judgment was issued to reflect a settlement reached by the parties after

Gaspard’s motion to amend the 1969 community property partition was denied.

The trial court, after hearing testimony, characterized the 2007 proceedings as

follows: ―But, in 2007, Mr.Gaspard voluntarily agreed to give half of it, which he

did. So I’m denying the motion for a directed verdict on the issue of the

accounting from 2007 forward, because he voluntarily agreed, at that point, to

transfer to her so that her transfer to HEB would be a valid transfer.‖ The court

then awarded rental payments to HEB from 2007 forward.

We find no error in the judgment rendered by the trial court. Costs of this

appeal are assessed to Arceneaux and HEB.

AFFIRMED.

This opinion is NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. Uniform Rules—Courts of
Appeal, Rule 2–16.3.

3