Opinion ID: 1849833
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ancient Document

Text: Plaintiffs' claim to title is based on a sheriff's deed dated January 1, 1870 and recorded on the fourteenth day of the same month, purporting to convey the property to Lassaline P. Briant. The name of the vendee, Lassaline P. Briant, is written over another name in the instrument; the other name, almost obscured, can be determined to be Miss Valerie Fournet. (The proces verbal of the sheriff's sale recited that Miss Valerie Fournet was the vendee, and that L. P. Briant and Z. T. Fournet were her securities for the payment of the price of the 12-months credit sale.) The deeds, of course, were written in pen and ink, and the record shows that Briant's name was superimposed over Valerie Fournet's in Briant's own hand, that the balance of the deed was not written in Briant's hand; that Briant, himself a deputy clerk, filed the proces verbal on January 10, 1870; that the sheriff's deed was recorded by another deputy recorder on January 14, 1870. R.S. 13:3728-3731 provide: 3728. Ancient document; admissible in civil suits On the trial of any civil case in any court ancient documents, defined in R.S. 13:3729, shall be received in evidence. 3729. Same; definition An ancient document is defined to mean any instrument written, including maps, plats and surveys, which has been recorded in the conveyance, mortgage, donation, miscellaneous or other official records of any parish of the state for a period of thirty years or more at the time such instrument is offered in evidence. 3730. Same; acknowledgment or proof of authenticity not required. It shall be unnecessary for any ancient document, as defined in R.S. 13:3729, to be acknowledged or proven as provided by any act, statute or other law of the state in order for such ancient document to be admitted in evidence, and it shall be unnecessary to prove the execution of such document, the mere fact of such instrument having been recorded for a period of thirty years, as herein provided, being sufficient to establish a prima facie presumption of the execution and of the genuineness of such instrument. 3731. Same; admissibility of copies It shall be unnecessary to offer in evidence the original copy of any ancient document, as defined in R.S. 13:3729, even though such original copy may be available, but in all cases copies of ancient documents made either from the original or from the recordation thereof shall be received in evidence if such copy offered in evidence be certified as a true copy by the custodian or by any legal deputy of the custodian of the records from which such copy is made. The court of appeal properly held that the statutory presumption of genuineness of ancient documents is not conclusive, and is rebuttable. However, because the instrument contains a material alteration (the change of the name of the vendee from Fournet to Briant) (t)he burden thus shifted to plaintiffs, who rely on that deed to prove that the alteration was made prior to delivery of that document, and that it was made with the consent of the parties. 308 So.2d 464, 471. This interpretation seriously impairs the efficacy of the ancient documents act. In the absence of statutes, many American jurisdictions have formulated theories for establishing the authenticity of writings by circumstantial evidence. Documents can be sufficiently authenticated by proof of 30 years age, unsuspicious appearance, and proof of production from custody natural for such documents. Sec. 223, McCormick, Law of Evidence, 2d ed., West Publishing Co. Therefore, in the absence of our statute, the material alteration in the instrument would mean that it would not be authenticated without more direct evidence. Muehrcke v. Behrens, 43 Wis.2d 1, 169 N.W.2d 86 (1969). Statutes in some states have couched their ancient documents rule in terms of rebuttable presumptions. For example, Oregon Revised Statutes 41, sec. 360(34) states: 41.360 Disputable presumptions. All presumptions other than conclusive presumptions are satisfactory, unless overcome. They are disputable presumptions, and may be controverted by other evidence, direct or indirect, but unless so overcome, the jury is bound to find according to the presumption. The following are of that kind: (34) A document or writing more than 20 years old is genuine, when it has been generally acted upon as genuine by persons having an interest in the question, and its custody has been satisfactorily explained. Similarly, Montana's ancient documents statute is discussed in King v. Schultz, 141 Mont. 94, 375 P.2d 108 (1962) where the court held: The ancient document rule does not change the basis for admission of evidence other than as to the genuineness of the document. The rule is embodied in RCM 1947, § 93-1301-7, subd. 34, which provides: All other presumptions are satisfactory, if uncontradicted. They are denominated disputable presumptions, and may be controverted by other evidence. The following are of that kind:    34. That a document or writing more than thirty years old is genuine, when the same has been since generally acted upon as genuine, by persons having an interest in the question, and its custody has been satisfactorily explained. In Cook v. Hudson, 110 Mont. 263, 284, 285, 103 P.2d 137, 147, the court considered the foregoing presumption in this language:    plaintiffs' Exhibits `G' and `H', Grant's notices of location of water right, were dated and acknowledged October 31, 1892, recorded November 2nd following and recite on the face thereof that the appropriations were made as of October 20, 1892. The recordation of the notice and the date on which the appropriation was alleged to have been made was one day prior in each instance to the date shown by the Severin notice. The presumption is that this record is genuine (subdiv. 34, sec. 10606, Rev. Codes 1921 [now R.C.M.1947, § 93-1301-7]), and its contents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. Emphasis supplied. The Louisiana statute, however, has been designed especially for our system of recordation of instruments affecting the title to land. The custodial requirement is satisfied, because our statute applies only to instruments recorded in the official records for more than 30 years. R.S. 13:3729. Our statute does not require that the ancient instrument be regular or unsuspicious. The combination of age and recordation not only authenticates the old document, making it admissible in evidence, but also, by the terms of the act, establishes a prima facie presumption of the execution and of the genuineness of such instrument. The only Louisiana case found which interprets the act so stated, and held that the burden of proof (to establish that an ancient document is not genuine) is upon those who assail an ancient document to overcome the presumption of its prima facie validity. Watkins v. Zeigler, 147 So. 2d 435, 438 (La.App.2d Cir. 1965). Moreover, our ancient documents statute even dispenses with the necessity of offering the original instrument; copies made from the recordation of the ancient document are admissible. The copy of the sheriff's deed involved in the instant case shows only Briant to be the vendee, was indexed in Briant's name, and shows no irregularity. The superimposition of Briant's name over that of Miss Fournet is not such an alteration that could not have an innocent explanation. It was recorded and indexed with no effort at concealment on the public records; it was assessed for tax purposes to Briant the following year and subsequently to the state for non-payment of taxes, in the name of Briant. Miss Fournet was Briant's sister-in-law. Briant is named as one of her securities for the payment of the purchase price in the proces verbal. The deed was not recorded until four days after the recordation of the proces verbal. It is entirely possible that Miss Fournet freely consented to the substitution of Briant's name for hers on the deed, for one of a number of valid reasons. The record contains no evidence whatsoever that the substitution of the name was not with the knowledge and consent of Miss Fournet. To hold that the burden of proving the regularity of the ancient instrument falls on the one relying on the instrument would emasculate the act. The party attacking a document covered by R.S. 13:3728-3731 must overcome the prima facie presumption of its validity. Defendants have not borne that burden.