Case Name: METAIRIE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WENDRYHOSKI, DeBLANC, AND ASSOCIATES, et al.
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1976-10-13
Citations: 338 So. 2d 978
Docket Number: No. 7635
Parties: METAIRIE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WENDRYHOSKI, DeBLANC, AND ASSOCIATES, et al.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and SCHOTT, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 338
Pages: 978–980

Head Matter:
METAIRIE BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. WENDRYHOSKI, DeBLANC, AND ASSOCIATES, et al.
No. 7635.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Oct. 13, 1976.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 16, 1976.
Writ Granted Jan. 14,1977.
James T. Flanagan (Moliere, Flanagan & Arceneaux), Metairie, for plaintiff-appellee.
John J. Farrell, Jr., P. J. Browne, Jr. (Montgomery, Barnett, Brown & Read), New Orleans, for intervenor-appellant.
Before SAMUEL, REDMANN and SCHOTT, JJ.

Opinion:
REDMANN, Judge.
Plaintiff bank obtained and recorded a judgment against Ralph Diaz. Then Rafael E. Diaz and his wife recorded a counter-letter ("Declaration of Separate Property") declaring that their home, acquired in the name of Rafael Eduardo Diaz for convenience only, was in fact acquired as the wife's separate property with her separate funds. Thereafter, plaintiff caused the seizure under fi. fa. of the Diaz home. The wife now appeals from the trial court's refusal to preliminarily enjoin sale of the home. We reverse.
The recordation of a judgment against "Ralph Diaz" does not make effective against third persons a judicial mortgage against property registered in the name of "Rafael Eduardo Diaz." See Ford v. Tilden, 1852, 7 La.Ann. 533; Douglass v. Curtis, La.1826, 5 Mart.(N.S.) 112; Graves v. Hunter, 1871, 23 La.Ann. 132. (Succession of Montgomery, La.App.1950, 46 So.2d 677, is distinguished because both judgment and title were in the same name, save only that the judgment added the middle initial.)
Accordingly, when the counter-letter acknowledging the wife's separate ownership was recorded and became effective, C.C. 2239, the wife was the record owner of the property, unaffected by any judicial mortgage in favor of plaintiff against "Ralph Diaz."
Thus when plaintiff seized the property under fi. fa. it was not the property of the judgment debtor. The sale must therefore be enjoined.
Reversed; preliminary injunction to issue with bond to be fixed by the trial judge at plaintiff's cost.
. The counter-letter cited an affidavit by the wife (recorded after the judgment) which lists the wife's checks by number, date, amount and purpose, including checks for improvements and repairs.
. For purposes of any reviewing court, we note that the wife did not direct the trial judge's attention (or ours) to the name discrepancy. The wife argued, first, that she has the traditional right of the wife to show that property acquired during marriage (in her name, in the cases we have found) is her separate property rather than community, see, e. g., Betz v. Riviere, 1947, 211 La. 43, 29 So.2d 465; and second, the unnecessity of preferring a judicial mortgagee over the unrecorded claim of a wife, since — as the fisherman cannot rely on the fish when he casts his net — one does not obtain and record a judgment in reliance on the public records (citing this writer's analysis of the right to reliance and of its limitations, in Louisiana Law of Recordation: Some Principles and Some Problems, 1965, 39 Tulane L.Rev. 491, 499-501). We find two decisions which somewhat support the wife: Douglass v. Douglass, 1899, 51 La.Ann. 1455, 26 So. 546; and Broussard v. LeBlanc, 1892, 44 La.Ann. 880, 11 So. 460 (see also Succession of Manson, 1899, 51 La.Ann. 130, 25 So. 639, where a bank's later-recorded counter-letter defeated a minor's recorded legal mortgage). A purchase by a third party in reliance on a title placed of record by a wife does defeat the wife's right, Broussard v. Broussard, 1893, 45 La.Ann. 1085, 13 So. 699. The judicial mortgage is effective against later-recorded counter-letters favoring persons other than wives; Robertson v. Wood, 1850, 5 La. Ann. 197; State Ex Rel. Hebert v. Recorder of Mortgages, 1932, 175 La. 94, 143 So. 15; and it is effective against a third party who purchased prior to the recordation of the judgment but did not record his purchase until thereafter; Baker v. Atkins, 1902, 107 La. 490, 32 So. 69; Robin v. Harris Realty Co., 1934, 178 La. 946, 152 So. 573.