Case Name: Wilson J. SAVOIE, et al. v. The ESTATE OF Dennis ROGERS, etc.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1981-09-08
Citations: 410 So. 2d 683
Docket Number: No. 81-C-0639
Parties: Wilson J. SAVOIE, et al. v. The ESTATE OF Dennis ROGERS, etc.
Judges: MARCUS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 410
Pages: 683–688

Head Matter:
Wilson J. SAVOIE, et al. v. The ESTATE OF Dennis ROGERS, etc.
No. 81-C-0639.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Sept. 8, 1981.
On Rehearing March 1, 1982.
Gerald C. deLaunay, Lafayette, for plaintiffs-applicants.
Donald D. Landry and Carl J. Menard of Perrin & Landry, Lafayette, Allan L. Du-rand, New Orleans, for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
WATSON, Justice.
Plaintiffs, Wilson J. and Marie P. Savoie, instituted this suit against the Succession of Dennis Rogers. They claimed $9,730.43 allegedly deposited with the deceased for payment of income taxes, plus $1,203.05 in damages for failure to file their tax returns. The trial court and the Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs could not recover for lack of an additional creditable witness. LSA-R.S. 13:3722 (the dead man's statute). Savoie v. Estate of Rogers, 394 So.2d 704 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1981). A writ was granted to review the judgment. 399 So.2d 597 (La., 1981).
Wilson J. Savoie, a retired painter, lived with his aged mother, Marie P. Savoie, and they apparently co-mingled their business affairs. Rogers conducted a tax and accounting service and had handled the Sa-voies' tax returns for about five years prior to 1978.
Because of his retirement, Savoie and his mother sold some land during 1977. Savoie consulted Rogers about the tax liability in early 1978. Savoie testified that Rogers advised him a total of $9,730.43 was due the state and federal governments for 1977. On February 1, 1978, Savoie deposited $3,000 and $500 with Rogers, for which he received signed receipts. On February 28, he deposited $6,230.43 with Rogers and received another signed receipt. Rogers allegedly told Savoie early payment was required of those who sold land. Rogers had Savoie and his mother sign blank 1977 tax returns when the money was deposited. The blank tax returns bearing the Savoies' signatures are in the record. Two yellow pad work sheets from Rogers' file folder for the Savoies have the name Wilson Savoie, and a notation "Mother SS # [ XXX-XX-XXXX ]." This is Marie Savoie's social security number. The figure $9,230.43 appears as a total at one point, a figure exactly $500 short of the amount the Savoies claim to have paid. Although their returns were separate, Rogers apparently did not differentiate between the Savoies as to the taxes said to be due.
A handwriting expert, one Farrell, was engaged jointly by the parties and he testified that the signature on the receipts was that of Dennis Rogers.
A Lafayette lawyer, Roderick L. Miller, testified that he handled a land sale for the Savoies early in 1978 and consulted with Rogers about the terms of the sale at the Savoies' request. Wilson Savoie had complained to Miller about the large amount of taxes he was having to pay for 1977 and wished to minimize the tax consequences of the 1978 sale. Miller reviewed the Savoies' capital gain for 1977 and advised Wilson Savoie their taxes should not be high unless they had a lot of other income. In fact, Wilson and Marie Savoie together owed 1977 taxes of only $352.36.
Rogers died by his own hand on June 14, 1978, without having completed or filed the tax returns on behalf of the Savoies or paying their money to the taxing authorities.
LSA-R.S. 13:3721 permits parol evidence to prove a debt or liability of deceased persons when suit is filed within one year of death. Suit was filed timely.
The circumstances overwhelmingly corroborate plaintiffs. The three receipts signed by the deceased, the income tax forms signed in blank, Rogers' work sheets and Miller's testimony all point to the fact that Rogers received the money in question. However, the succession contends that plaintiffs have failed to produce one creditable witness, as required by LSA-R.S. 13:3722:
"When parol evidence is admissible under the provisions of R.S. 13:3721 the debt or liability of the deceased must be proved by the testimony of at least one creditable witness other than the claimant, and other corroborating circumstances."
Plaintiffs contend that they may testify on behalf of each other. The question is whether their interest in the lawsuit precludes them from being "creditable" witnesses.
While the interest of a witness may be considered in weighing his testimony, it does not in any case completely disqualify him. LSA-R.S. 13.-3665. LSA-C.C. art. 2282 provides:
"The circumstance of the witness being a relation, a party to the cause, interested in the result of the suit, or in the actual service or salary of one of the parties, is not a sufficient cause to consider the witness as incompetent, but may, according to circumstances, diminish the extent of his credibility."
It is not improper to allow Marie Savoie to confirm the claim of Wilson Savoie and for Wilson Savoie to confirm the claim of Marie Savoie; neither has been discredited as a witness for the other. See the article at 21 Loyola Law Review 422.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeal for a determination of the amount due the Savoies.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
MARCUS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
DENNIS, J., concurs with reasons.
BLANCHE, J., concurs and assigns reasons.
. The succession was declared vacant, and Donald Landry was appointed Administrator, and it was against him that the suit was filed.
. LSA-R.S. 13:3665 provides:
"The competent witness in any civil proceeding in court or before a person having authority to receive evidence shall be a person of proper understanding."