Case Name: PLACID OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Watson TAYLOR et al., Defendants and Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-03-12
Citations: 291 So. 2d 892
Docket Number: No. 4453
Parties: PLACID OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Watson TAYLOR et al., Defendants and Appellees.
Judges: Before HOOD, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 291
Pages: 892–904

Head Matter:
PLACID OIL COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Watson TAYLOR et al., Defendants and Appellees.
No. 4453.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
March 12, 1974.
Rehearing Denied April 11, 1974.
Writ Granted May 31, 1974.
Hersch'el M. Downs, Shreveport, for plaintiff-appellant.
G. F. Thomas, Jr., Sam J. Friedman, Makar & Whitaker by John Makar, Natchi-toches, Robert J. Donovan, Shreveport, Daniel T. Murchison, Sam Nelken, Natchi-toches, Luther S. Montgomery, Shreveport, for defendants-appellees.
Before HOOD, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.

Opinion:
CULPEPPER, Judge.
This is a concursus proceeding by Placid Oil Company to determine the ownership of certain mineral and royalty interests in two 20-acre tracts. Placid lists 36 claimants, 35 of whom are heirs of Raford (Rafe) Taylor and his wife, Amanda De-mery Nash Taylor, and of Watson Taylor and his surviving spouse, Nancy Williams Taylor, hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Taylor heirs". The other claimant is Mrs. Betty Beason.
The dispute arises out of two mineral deeds from the Taylor heirs to C. C. Copeland in 1964. A contract executed and recorded with these deeds states that the major part of the consideration is services rendered by Copeland in removing clouds from the titles of the Taylor heirs. The issue is whether these transactions are null and void on the grounds that Copeland, a non-lawyer, agreed to render or furnish legal services in violation of LSA-R.S. 37:213. The Taylor heirs contended in their answers that the Copeland mineral deeds are null and void. Mrs. Beason, who later acquired the Copeland mineral interests, contends the deeds are valid.
Placid Oil Company also attacks the Copeland mineral deeds because its leases from the Taylor heirs provide only a (4th royalty, whereas the lease of any mineral interests owned by Mrs. Beason provides a (4th royalty. Placid deposited a full (4th royalty attributable to the mineral interests in dispute. But it prays for a refund as to all funds in excess of those necessary to satisfy the (4th royalty under the Taylor heirs leases.
A further issue arises from the fact that while the matter was pending in the district court some of the Taylor heirs, but not all, entered into compromise agreements with Mrs. Beason. The agreements vary in certain respects, but each of them purports to ratify the Copeland mineral deeds and contract.
The district judge held the Copeland mineral deeds are null and void since the major consideration therefor was Copeland's agreement to render or furnish legal services, in violation of LSA-R.S. 37:213. However, he gave effect to the compromise agreements. As to those Taylor heirs who signed them, he held their interests are fixed by the compromise agreements and their interests are subject to the (4th royalty lease. As to the Taylor heirs who did not sign a compromise agreement, the district judge recognized their interests are subject to the %th royalty leases held by Placid. Hence, the (4th royalties in the registry of the court attributable to the interests of the Taylor heirs who did not sign a compromise agreement were divided (4 to such heirs and (4 to Placid.
Only Placid Oil Company appealed. None of the other claimants appealed or answered the appeal and hence they cannot seek modification of the judgment.
On appeal, Placid urges the trial court erred in three respects: (1) Holding that the compromise agreements signed by some of the Taylor heirs and Mrs. Beason have the effect of ratifying the Copeland mineral deeds; (2) Holding that the compromise agreements are effective against Placid, although it is not a party to the agreements; (3) Ignoring Placid's leases from Pap C. Taylor, Watson Taylor and Robert Taylor, which provide only %th royalty and were recorded before the Copeland mineral deeds or the compromise agreements.
The trial judge was clearly correct in holding the Copeland mineral deeds and contract null and void. LSA-R.S. 37:213 provides in pertinent part:
"No natural person, who has not been duly and regularly licensed and admitted to practice law by the Supreme Court of this state shall:
"(1) Practice law;
"(2) Furnish attorneys or counsel or an attorney and counsel to render legal services;
"(3) Hold himself out to the public as being entitled to practice law;
"(4) Render or furnish legal services or advice;
" Any natural person who violates any provision of this Section shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both. "
Each of the mineral deeds from the Taylor heirs to Copeland states that the consideration is "Ten Dollars and other valuable considerations." However, the contract which was executed and recorded with the mineral deeds, provides in part:
"Whereas; the Taylor heirs state that they, as heirs of the aforementioned ancestors are, or should be the owners of certain properties -in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, the title of which they are not certain of, and which might have clouds upon said titles, because of mineral reservations, or other defects, and
"Whereas, Copeland, because of his experience, knowledge and education believes that he can remove all clouds from the said titles, and agrees to use all diligence in his efforts to do so, AT HIS SOLE EXPENSE, and the decision as to the method of procedure, and whether or not to institute litigation shall be left entirely to the discretion of Copeland, and
"Whereas; the Taylor heirs have executed a certain Mineral Deed covering and affecting certain lands in Natchi-toches Parish in the percentage of their full interest, and disposition of said mineral rights, and whether or not to execute an oil and gas lease covering and affecting the land described in said mineral deed shall be at the sole discretion of Copeland, and
"Whereas, The consideration shown upon the said Mineral Deed is Ten Dollars and other considerations, it is understood and agreed that the major part of the consideration is the services rendered by Copeland in removing the clouds upon said title, and "
The documents on their face show that the "major part of the consideration" for the mineral deeds was services rendered by Copeland in using his experience, knowledge and education to remove the clouds from the titles of the Taylor heirs. This unquestionably involved the rendering or furnishing of legal services by a non-lawyer, in violation of prohibitory law, LSA-R.S. 37:213.
LSA-C.C. Articles 11 and 12 provide:
"Art. 11. Individuals can not by their conventions, derogate from the force of laws made for the preservation of public order or good morals.
"But in all cases in which it is not expressly or impliedly prohibited, they can renounce what the law has established in their favor, when the renunciation does not affect the rights of others, and is not contrary to the public good."
"Art. 12. Whatever is done in contravention of a prohibitory law, is void, although the nullity be not formally directed."
Also, Civil Code Articles 1893 and 1895 provide:
"Art. 1893. An obligation without a cause, or with a false or unlawful cause, can have no effect."
"Art. 1895. The cause is unlawful, when it is forbidden by law, when it is contra bonos mores (contrary to moral conduct) or to public order."
Jurisprudence has established the rule that where the cause of a contract is forbidden by law, or is contrary to moral conduct or the public order, it is an absolute nullity which cannot be given effect by ratification, Lewis v. Boyce, 19 La.Ann. [459] 460 (1867); Ackerman v. Larner, 116 La. 101, 40 So. 581 (1906); Barnes v. Barnes, 155 La. 981, 99 So. 719 (1924); Sonnier v. Fris, 220 La. 1085, 52 So.2d 393 (1952); Smith v. Smith, 239 La. 688, 119 So.2d 827 (1960).
Counsel have found no cases dealing with the specific question of whether such unlawful contracts can be given effect through transaction or compromise under LSA-C.C. Articles 3071-3083. However, we conclude the rationale against ratification also applies to transaction or compromise. The law cannot .'give effect to a contract whose cause violates a prohibitory penal statute, whether the parties seek to do so by ratification or by compromise of threatened or pending litigation. For example, if the cause of the contract is to commit a crime, as it actually is in the present case, the law must refuse to give the agreement effect, even in an effort to prevent or bring to an end litigation. To hold otherwise would permit parties by compromise to violate a prohibitory penal statute.
Having concluded that the compromise agreement is of no effect, it is unnecessary for us to consider Placid's second and third assignments of error stated above.
Since the Copeland mineral deeds are void and can be given no effect under the compromise agreements, it follows that Copeland acquired no mineral interest in the subject property, that there were no such mineral interests leased to Placid for a 14th royalty, and that Mrs. Betty Beason owns no mineral interest or royalties. The Taylor heirs are the owners of all of the minerals in dispute in this concursus proceeding, and these minerals are subject to the 14th royalty leases which the various Taylor heirs have signed and are now owned by Placid.
As amongst the Taylor heirs, their ownership of the minerals in dispute is set forth in plaintiff's exhibits 18, 19 and 20, which are attached to and made a part of this decision.
The Taylor heirs own the royalties on deposit in the registry of the court and those to be disbursed in the future under Placid's leases in the proportions shown on the attached exhibits. All funds deposited in the registry of the court in excess of those necessary to pay i/gth royalty must be reimbursed to Placid.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment of the district court is amended so as to provide that the mineral royalty interests in Tracts 58 and 59 are owned by the Taylor heirs in the proportions set out in plaintiff's exhibits 18, 19 and 20 which are attached hereto and made a part hereof. That part of the judgment which gives effect to the compromise agreements between certain of the Taylor heirs and Mrs. Betty Beason is reversed and set aside. That part of the judgment which recognizes Mrs. Betty Beason as owner of a part of the mineral royalty interest in dispute is reversed and set aside. All royalties on deposit in the registry of the court and those to be distributed in the future shall be disbursed under Placid's leases from the Taylor heirs which provide for a %th royalty. All royalties on deposit in the registry of the court in excess of those necessary to pay the 1,4th royalty shall be reimbursed to Placid Oil Company. The provisions of the judgment as to the payment of costs are affirmed.
Reversed in part, amended and affirmed in part.
HOOD, J., dissents in part and assigns written reasons.