Case Name: Angelo DiVINCENTI v. Reginald McINTYRE, as curator of the interdict, Phyne Uli (also known as Josephine Marie Uli)
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1992-11-04
Citations: 611 So. 2d 140
Docket Number: No. 91 CA 0914
Parties: Angelo DiVINCENTI v. Reginald McINTYRE, as curator of the interdict, Phyne Uli (also known as Josephine Marie Uli).
Judges: Before EDWARDS, SHORTESS, LANIER, CRAIN, and WHIPPLE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 611
Pages: 140–147

Head Matter:
Angelo DiVINCENTI v. Reginald McINTYRE, as curator of the interdict, Phyne Uli (also known as Josephine Marie Uli).
No. 91 CA 0914.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
Nov. 4, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1993.
Writ Denied March 26, 1993.
George Anding, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellee.
Patrick Leitz, John Holmes, New Orleans, E. Wade Shows, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.
Rodney Pete McIntyre, Curator.
Before EDWARDS, SHORTESS, LANIER, CRAIN, and WHIPPLE, JJ.

Opinion:
SHORTESS, Judge.
Angelo DiVincenti (plaintiff) and Josephine Marie Uli (defendant) were married on July 3, 1954. In 1958 a marriage contract between plaintiff and defendant dated July 1,1954, was filed in the records of Tangipa-hoa Parish. Defendant was interdicted following a stroke in 1984. In 1986 plaintiff filed this declaratory judgment action against Reginald J. McIntyre, defendant's curator, to have the marriage contract declared null and void. The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff. Defendant, through Rodney P. McIntyre, her present curator (curator), appeals.
The curator contends the trial court erred in finding plaintiff met his burden of proving the marriage contract was invalid. The marriage contract in question was in authentic form, as was required in 1954. An authentic act constitutes full proof of the agreement it contains. La.C.C. art. 1835. Because the authentic act is clothed with a presumption of genuineness, the party attacking the authenticity of the act bears the burden of proving the invalidity. Perry v. Akin, 174 La. 472, 141 So. 32 (1932); Eymard v. Terrebonne, 560 So.2d 887, 889 (La.App. 1st Cir.1990); Comment, Writing Requirements and the Authentic Act in Louisiana: Civil Code Articles 2236, 2275 & 2278, 35 La.L.Rev. 764, 775 (1975).
The law accords a high degree of sanctity to authentic acts. Pierre v. Donaldsonville Motor Co., 22 So.2d 291, 293-294 (La.App.Orl.Cir.1945). The Louisiana. Supreme Court explained:
The effect given by law to authentic acts, rests upon the presumption, that a public officer, exercising a high and important trust, under the solemnity of an oath, has done his duty when acting within the scope of his authority. Selected for their character, capacity and probity, as notaries are presumed to be, the law attaches full credit to their official acts. This prerogative is established in the interest of public order, to maintain peace among men, and to prevent contestations concerning the proof or evidence of their conventions.
Succession of Tete, 7 La.Ann. 95, 96 (La. 1852). Consequently, the party seeking to prove the invalidity of the act must present evidence beyond a mere preponderance. In Eymard, this court required "convincing proof" to invalidate an authentic act. 560 So.2d at 889. See also De Blanc v. Martin, 2 Rob.R. 82 (La.1842) ("evidence . as to leave no reasonable doubt"); Pierre, 22 So.2d at 293-294 ("convincing proof"; "strong proof").
Plaintiff does not dispute the genuineness of the signatures on the matrimonial agreement. The notary, Joseph D. Lupo, and both witnesses identified their signatures. The principal dispute is whether the contract was executed before the marriage, as was required at that time by Civil Code article 2329, or whether the document was antedated by the notary.
The curator introduced the deposition testimony of Lupo and the two witnesses. Neither of the witnesses had specific recall of the events surrounding the execution of the agreement. Lupo, an attorney, had a general recollection of the events surrounding his preparation of the document and the execution thereof by the parties. He testified defendant asked him before her marriage to plaintiff to prepare a marriage contract to maintain the separate nature of property she had owned for many years. He further testified he would never have backdated a document or notarized it without the parties or witnesses being present.
In Pierre, the memories of the notary and a witness were similarly blurred by the passage of time. The court stated:
[T]he instrument itself is in authentic form and the notary states therein that it was executed before him in the presence of the witnesses, who signed their names with the parties to the act, after due reading of the whole. This is sufficient to sustain the validity of the instrument as an authentic act in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary.
22 So.2d at 293. Here, plaintiff presented as "proof to the contrary" his own self-serving testimony denying execution of the agreement before marriage. He also provided the deposition testimony of an Air Force friend, his friend's wife, and certain military records to show he was at Barks-dale Air Force Base on July 1, 1954.
Rodney and Reginald McIntyre testified for the defense, in addition to the notary and the witnesses. Both McIntyres testified plaintiff admitted to them that he signed the agreement before the marriage. The McIntyres stated plaintiff told them he signed the agreement because he was being sent overseas by the Air Force and wanted to make things easier for defendant in the event he was killed. Plaintiff denied any such conversations.
The trial court found this case was "a swearing contest between the opposing parties." He then relied on the military records, which he found more impressive than any other testimony or evidence. Based on these records, which showed plaintiff was at Barksdale Air Force Base on the date the matrimonial agreement was allegedly executed, he found the marriage contract null and void.
The trial court committed legal error in finding that unsworn military records (which were simply an extract by a clerk based on sign-in sheets which were not available for review by the parties or the court) carried sufficient evidentiary weight to invalidate an authentic act. Plaintiff has failed to present strong and convincing proof of such magnitude as to overcome the presumption of verity of notarial acts. For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. Plaintiffs suit is dismissed, with prejudice, at his cost.
REVERSED AND RENDERED.
CRAIN, J., concurs.
LANIER, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
EDWARDS, J., dissents for the reasons assigned by LANIER, J.
. The case was set for trial before Judge Joseph E. Anzalone on March 28, 1989. Midway through the trial, however, Judge Anzalone discovered he was a potential witness. He de-dared a mistrial and recused himself. The case was retried in 1991. The testimony and exhibits from the previous trial were adopted by joint stipulation.
. Louisiana Civil Code article 2331, as amended in 1979, now provides that a matrimonial agreement shall be made by authentic act or by an act under private signature duly acknowledged.