Case Name: Eunice Franklin, wife of/and Ketridge R. FRANKLIN v. John J. EVANS, Jr. and D. M. Greenup d/b/a D. M. Greenup Realty Company
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-02-13
Citations: 315 So. 2d 818
Docket Number: No. 6554
Parties: Eunice Franklin, wife of/and Ketridge R. FRANKLIN v. John J. EVANS, Jr. and D. M. Greenup d/b/a D. M. Greenup Realty Company.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 315
Pages: 818–822

Head Matter:
Eunice Franklin, wife of/and Ketridge R. FRANKLIN v. John J. EVANS, Jr. and D. M. Greenup d/b/a D. M. Greenup Realty Company.
No. 6554.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Feb. 13, 1975.
On Rehearing May 15, 1975.
Revius O. Ortique, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellant, D. M. Greenup.
Elie, Sobol, Strickler & Dennis, George M. Strickler, Jr., New Orleans, for defendant-appellee, John J. Evans, Jr.
Clayton J. Borne, III, Metairie, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Before SAMUEL, GULOTTA and SCHOTT, JJ.

Opinion:
SCHOTT, Judge.
An agreement to purchase and sell the property at 522 Webster Street, Kenner, Louisiana, for $18,000 was entered into between the plaintiffs, as purchasers, and defendants, Evans and Greenup, as seller and agent respectively. In connection therewith plaintiffs deposited $1800 with Green-up and they filed this suit for the return of this deposit together with an equal amount as a penalty and for attorney's fees, upon allegations that they were induced to sign the agreement by misrepresentation on the part of defendants as to the characteristics of the property. Defendant Evans filed a third-party petition against Greenup, seeking indemnity upon allegations that if any misrepresentations were made at all they were made by Greenup without consent, cooperation or knowledge on his part. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs against Evans and Greenup for $3600 plus attorney's fees in the amount of $1,000 and in favor of Evans against Greenup for the amount of $900, only Greenup has appealed.
According to the testimony of plaintiffs when they were shown the property by Greenup's salesman and the father of Evans they were told by them that a driveway on the north side of the property was a common driveway which would be available to them to gain access to the rear of the property. They testified that there were buildings in the rear of the property and that it would be suitable for two rear apartments since the common driveway provided access. Without a doubt, based upon their testimony, they would not have agreed to purchase this property unless ownership of the property included the use of that driveway. Shortly before the act of sale was to be passed they inspected the property and found that a fence had been erected between the driveway and the property and they immediately contacted Greenup, who promised to investigate the situation.
Defendants produced their two salesmen, F. D. Greenup and Lidell Greenup, and the senior Evans, who denied having any such conversations with plaintiffs relative to the driveway.
In his reasons for judgment the trial court said that he "was impressed favorably by the plaintiffs and consequently believes that they were, in fact, told by Mr. Greenup and Mr. Evans that the property did include the community drive in question." He also found that Greenup and Evans "did materially misrepresent the facts; and in doing so, wrongfully induced the plaintiffs to execute the said agreement to purchase."
The sole specification of error assigned in this Court is that parol evidence was not admissible to alter the terms of the written agreement to purchase which provided only that the property was situated "on grounds measuring about as per title" and which was silent with respect to the driveway.
The law is too well settled to require citation that where fraud or misrepresentation is alleged the court may consider such parol evidence in connection with a written agreement confected as a result of such a misrepresentation. Gulf States Finance Corp. v. Airline Auto Sales, Inc., 248 La. 591, 181 So.2d 36, Vales v. Doley, 297 So.2d 532 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1974).
Having concluded that such testimony was admissible there is no basis for a reversal of the trial judge's credibility call in favor of plaintiffs over defendants.
As to the judgment in favor of Evans against Greenup for $900 on the third-party petition, there is no basis for disturbing this award. This $900 is one-half of plaintiffs' deposit being held by Greenup.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
GULOTTA, J., dissenting.