Belinda Layssard Stokes v. Doris Barnhart Stokes

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

14-45

BELINDA LAYSSARD STOKES

VERSUS

DORIS BARNHART LAYSSARD

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF RAPIDES, DOCKET NO. 244,874-C
HONORABLE MARY L. DOGGETT, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********

SYLVIA R. COOKS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Sylvia R. Cooks, Marc T. Amy and J. David Painter, Judges.

AFFIRMED.

William Alan Pesnell
The Pesnell Law Firm, APLC
400 Travis Street, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 1794
Shreveport, LA 71101
(318) 226-5577
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT
Belinda Layssard Stokes

William M. Ford
The Ford Law Firm
1630 Metro Drive
Alexandria, LA 71301
(318) 442-8899
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE
Doris Barnhart Layssard

COOKS, Judge.

This appeal involves a petition to annul a donation inter vivos and for

damages resulting filed by the plaintiff, Belinda Layssard Stokes (hereafter Ms.

Stokes) against the defendant, Doris Barnhart Layssard (hereafter Ms. Layssard).

The petition sought an annulment of a purported donation of Ms. Stokes’ interest

in a tract of land and for damages resulting from the conversion subject thereto.

The disputed donation concerns Ms. Stokes’ interest in a tract of land which she

inherited from her father. Ms. Layssard also filed a reconventional demand

seeking reimbursement from Ms. Stokes, alleging she was indebted to her for

$3,561.88.

The facts involving the dispute are as follows. Ms. Layssard was married to

Walter Layssard, of which union seven children were born, including Ms. Stokes.

During the marriage, the Layssards purchased a ten acre tract of land in Rapides

Parish, which served as the family home.

Walter Layssard died in 1978, and was survived by his wife and their seven

children. Ms. Layssard married again in 1992, but was divorced shortly thereafter.

Due to her remarriage, she lost her usufruct over Walter Layssard’s share of the

community property.

One of the children, Richard Layssard, transferred his interest in the property

to his mother. On January 10, 2005, Ms. Layssard had all of her other children to

the family home for lunch and the children purportedly signed a document

transferring each child’s interest in the property to her. All six remaining children

acknowledged they signed the donation on that date, including Ms. Stokes. The

donation was also signed by two witnesses and a notary public.

Ms. Stokes did not deny her signature on the donation. However, she

disputes its legal validity on two grounds: (1) She did not sign the document in the

presence of the witnesses and notary and (2) she did not understand the document,

2

asserting she believed it contained a transfer of land from her to her brother, Daryl

J. Layssard, rather than a transfer of her interest in the property to her mother.

Specifically, Ms. Stokes testified she did sign the document on that date, but only

in the presence of her mother and one sibling, her brother, Daryl. Furthermore, she

stated the other siblings and her mother signed the document prior to her arrival.

Daryl Layssard testified on Ms. Stokes’ behalf. He stated he picked Ms.

Stokes up on the morning of January 10, 2005, and drove her to their mother’s

house for the purpose of executing a donation. Like Ms. Stokes, Daryl testified he

believed the document would transfer property from his sister to him. Daryl also

corroborated Ms. Stokes’ testimony that Ms. Layssard was the only other person

present when Ms. Stokes signed the document.

To the contrary, Ms. Layssard testified the document was signed at her home

during the lunch hour by all the children, and in the presence of the witnesses and

notary. Ms. Layssard testified she chose that time so all her children could be

present.

Four of the other siblings also testified regarding the purported execution of

the donation: Diane Layssard Ducote, Walter Layssard, Robert Layssard and

Debra Layssard Johnson. They all confirmed they signed the document at their

mother’s home during the lunch hour. They also testified to seeing Ms. Stokes

arrive at the home with their brother Daryl, while the witnesses and notary were

present. While the siblings were unable to remember Ms. Stokes actually signing

the document, they did remember seeing all the siblings’ signatures on the

document on that day. It was acknowledged at trial by Ms. Stokes, that she only

had a good relationship with her brother Daryl and there was significant animosity

between her and the other siblings.

Both the witnesses and the notary testified due to the event being eight years

ago, they were unable to specifically recall Ms. Stokes signing the document.

3

However, each testified being at Ms. Layssard’s house for the purpose of executing

the donation. Mrs. Jennifer Peterman, the notary, testified she recalled the meeting

being at noon in order to get the children together at one time. She stated it was

her practice to witness all signatures and ask each signatory if he or she understood

the document. Mrs. Peterman maintained she would not have notarized the

document if she had not actually witnessed each signature.

The trial court noted in its written reasons for judgment that it was

undisputed that the document in question appears from its face to be a properly

executed authentic act. Thus, it is presumed to be valid and Ms. Stokes must

present strong and convincing proof to overcome that presumption. The trial court

concluded “the overwhelming majority of evidence at trial contradicts Ms. Stokes’

evidence and favors [Ms. Layssard’s] version of events surrounding the proper

execution of the donation.” Accordingly, the trial court denied Ms. Stokes’

petition to annul.

Ms. Stokes also sought reimbursement from Ms. Layssard for

improvements made to the land and for damages due to the loss of her trailer. The

trial court denied the claim for reimbursement, finding the improvements specified

by Ms. Stokes (a utility pole, a sewerage treatment plant and a water system) were

incorporated into the land, so as to become component parts of the land. Thus,

under La.Civ.Code art. 469, the transfer of an immovable includes a transfer of its

component parts.

The trial court also denied Ms. Stokes’ claim for damages for the loss of her

mobile home. The trial court noted Ms. Stokes was evicted from the property on

September 6, 2011. Although Ms. Stokes alleged in her petition the eviction was

wrongful, she acknowledged it was never appealed. Thus, for purposes of the

proceedings before the trial court, the eviction was deemed lawful. The trial court

then noted La.Civ.Code art. 2707 provides a lessor with a privilege on a lessee’s

4

movables that are found upon the leased property at the time of a lawful eviction.

The trial court also determined there was no evidence in the record to indicate a

proper declaration of intent that the mobile home shall remain permanently

attached to the land under La.R.S. 32:710. Thus, the trial court found the mobile

home was movable property which was legally removed by Ms. Layssard after the

lawful eviction.

Lastly, the trial court denied Ms. Layssard’s reconventional demand seeking

reimbursement from Ms. Stokes, finding the reconventional demand was filed

more than three years from the last credit entry on the account between the two.

Thus, the three-year prescriptive period set forth in La.Civ.Code art. 3494 had

prescribed.

Ms. Stokes has timely appealed the trial court’s judgment, setting forth the

following lone assignment of error:

(1) The trial court erred by failing to give proper weight to the
testimony of the witnesses and by relying on the testimony of
witnesses with no recollection of events, contrary to the direct,
positive testimony of two witnesses corroborated by independent
documentation.

The denial of Ms. Stokes’ claims for reimbursement and damages, as well as the

denial of Ms. Layssard’s reconventional demand have not been appealed.

ANALYSIS

Ms. Stokes bases her petition to annul on the grounds that the donation in

question was not a properly executed authentic act. Louisiana Civil Code Article

1833 defines an authentic act, in pertinent part, as follows:

A. An authentic act is a writing executed before a notary public
or other officer authorized to perform that function, in the presence of
two witnesses, and signed by each party who executed it, by each
witness, and by each notary public before whom it was executed. . .

B. To be an authentic act, the writing need not be executed at
one time or place, or before the same notary public or in the presence
of the same witnesses, provided that each party who executes it does
so before a notary public or other officer authorized to perform that

5

function, and in the presence of two witnesses and each party, each
witness, and each notary public signs it. . .

“[A]uthentic acts are presumed to be valid and a party asserting otherwise

must present strong and convincing proof of such magnitude as to overcome this

presumption.” Wiedemann v. Weidemann, 09-41, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/29/09),

30 So.3d 972, 974, (citing Meltzer v. Meltzer, 95-551, 95-552 (La.App. 4 Cir.

9/28/95), 662 So.2d 58, writ denied, 95-2616 (La. 1/5/96), 666 So.2d 293), writ

denied, 10-242 (La. 4/9/10), 31 So.3d 390. It is undisputed that the donation in

question in this case is in proper form and is therefore presumed to be valid. Thus,

Ms. Stokes was required to present “strong and convincing proof” to overcome the

presumption of validity. After a thorough review of the record, we cannot say the

trial court erred in finding she failed to meet this burden.

In her brief to this court, Ms. Stokes states she signed the document outside

the presence of the notary and the witnesses, as did the other signatories. She

states on the date in question she “was awakened after her shift at Proctor and

Gamble, by [her brother Daryl Layssard], and they went to [Ms. Layssard’s] home

between 6 and 7 am.” Ms. Stokes maintains she was told the document was

executed to give property to her brother, not to donate everything to her mother.

In brief, Ms. Stokes states she “went back to her home to rest, and get ready to go

to court that day for her divorce.” However, there is no mention during her

testimony at trial as to any court appearance on that day. Daryl Layssard gave

similar testimony to his sister, largely corroborating her version of events.

Mrs. Layssard testified she prepared a lunch for her children on January 10,

2005, in order to gather them in one place so that her children could sign the

donation transferring their interest in the property to her. She stated she had a clear

recollection of the events of the day, and that each of her children signed the

document in the presence of the notary and the witnesses. She maintained during

6

cross-examination that she saw Ms. Stokes and Daryl Layssard sign the document

while in the presence of the notary and witnesses.

Of particular relevance was the testimony of Ms. Jennifer Peterman, who

was the notary public. She acknowledged “it’s been a while” since the event and

noted she did not “remember the day very well but it is a standard practice for

everyone to sign in my presence.” Ms. Peterman corroborated Ms. Layssard’s

testimony that the signing occurred “around noon time” and that there was “quite a

spread that day.” She also recalled Ms. Layssard “had tried to arrange the

document to be signed 2 to 3 times previous to that but it had not worked out.” On

cross-examination, Mr. Peterman again acknowledged she did not have an

independent recollection of Ms. Stokes signing the document, but would not have

notarized it if she had not witnesses her signing.

Richard Witz, one of the two witnesses who signed the donation, testified he

“did witness the, uh, signatures and of course after everybody signed, that’s when

we signed.” Mr. Witz maintained each of the signatories to the donation signed in

his presence.

Ms. Stokes relied heavily on the fact that many of the witnesses who testified

did not have clear recollections of the events of January 10, 2005. This is not

surprising considering approximately eight years passed from that day to the trial

on this matter. The court in Wiedemann noted the requirement to overcome the

presumption of authenticity by strong and convincing proof is “especially true

when the passage of time has blurred memories.” Wiedemann, 30 So.3d at 974.

The trial court also specifically noted “[Ms.] Stokes’ story conflicted on

several points,” and that the “majority of evidence at trial contradicts Ms. Stokes’

evidence and favors [Ms. Layssard’s] version of events surrounding the proper

execution of the donation.” Such credibility calls and factual determinations are

the sole province of the trier of fact, and it is not appropriate for an appellate court

7

to substitute its opinion unless we find manifest error. Cosby v. Holcomb

Trucking, Inc., 05-470 (La. 9/6/06), 942 So.2d 471. Our review of the record,

reveals no manifest error in the trial court’s factual determinations.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, the lower court judgment is affirmed. All costs of

this appeal are assessed to plaintiff-appellant, Belinda Layssard Stokes.

AFFIRMED.

8