Opinion ID: 1856655
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: agreement as to retirement

Text: Before we consider the arguments of counsel, we find it necessary to revisit the facts regarding the agreement that the McCarrolls had about Mr. McCarroll's retirement, since we find that the lower courts manifestly erred in their appreciation of the facts. It must be remembered that the written instrument that the McCarrolls formally signed in 1990 actually memorialized events that transpired in 1979, approximately eleven years earlier. Although the trial court recognized the 1990 written agreement as an authentic act, it allowed testimony of Margarette McCarroll, Donald McCarroll, his brother, Wendall, and his sister, Joan, to supplement the terms of the written agreement beyond those contained in the instrument. In particular, the trial court allowed this testimony to resolve the ambiguity in the settlement with respect to the inclusion of the Chevron benefits as movable property in the name of Donald McCarroll or in his possession. La.Civ.Code art. 1848 states: Testimonial or other evidence may not be admitted to negate or vary the contents of an authentic act or an act under private signature. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, that evidence may be admitted to prove such circumstances as vice of consent, or a simulation, or to prove that the written act was modified by a subsequent and valid oral agreement. Although parol evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of a written contract, when the terms of a written contract are susceptible to more than one interpretation, or there is uncertainty or ambiguity as to its provisions, or the intent of the parties cannot be ascertained from the language employed, parol evidence is admissible to clarify the ambiguity and to show the intention of the parties. Dixie Campers, Inc. v. Vesely Co., 398 So.2d 1087 (La.1981). It is equally well established that the true cause or consideration for a contract may be shown by parol evidence, even though the true consideration is different from that which is recited in the written act. Smith v. Southern Kraft Corporation, 202 La. 1019, 13 So.2d 335 (1943); Love v. Dedon, 239 La. 109, 118 So.2d 122 (1960); Hogan v. McKeithen, 527 So.2d 982 (La.App. 2 Cir.1988). [7] There is no doubt that the trial court properly admitted the testimony of the various witnesses to resolve the inclusion of the Chevron retirement benefits as movable property in the name of Donald McCarroll. Through this testimony an ambiguity was resolved. It is, however, with some hesitancy that we also find that the trial court properly considered that the parties addressed Mrs. McCarroll's use of the family home. Although such use is not mentioned within the four corners of the document, the conduct of the parties in 1979 provides the authenticating character that justifies our conclusion that the trial court properly relied upon this additional testimony. The facts show that even though Mrs. McCarroll denied that this transaction took place in 1979, shortly thereafter Mr. McCarroll moved out of the family residence and Mrs. McCarroll and her two minor children moved into the home. Simply put, the actions of the parties speak louder than words. Thus, we find that the trial court correctly relied upon this additional evidence to show that the parties intended to include this use as further consideration for the inclusion of Mr. McCarroll's retirement benefits. Notwithstanding this determination, we find that the trial court was clearly wrong in its conclusion with regard to the term of the agreement. When the trial court performed its lesion analysis, it determined, without any elaboration, that Mrs. McCarroll had 190 months of exclusive use and possession of the family home. It cannot be denied that as of the time that this matter was tried Mrs. McCarroll had lived in the family residence for 178 months. Nevertheless, there is no testimony that would allow one to conclude that Mrs. McCarroll would have the exclusive use of the home for that long. To the contrary, Joan Perilloux and Mr. McCarroll testified that Mrs. McCarroll exchanged her rights to the Chevron retirement in exchange for $5,000, the furniture in the house, and the use of the family residence until the children were eighteen years of age. Even though the record does not establish the exact birth date of Allison, the youngest child, the testimony showed in numerous places that she celebrated her eighteenth birthday in 1984. Thus, we find that the testimony establishes without contradiction that Mrs. McCarroll's exclusive use of the family residence ended in 1984. Since then Mrs. McCarroll lived in the family residence as a co-owner, subject to the other co-owner's demand, at any time, to cease exclusive use of the residence and to partition the property. La.Civ.Code arts. 802, 807. Accordingly, Mrs. McCarroll's use of the family residence after 1984 was precarious, at best, and clearly not contemplated by the parties in 1979. Therefore, we find that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in concluding otherwise. With the inclusion of this corrected understanding of the agreement, we will proceed with our analysis of the other issues presented.