Opinion ID: 1827668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Were the Donations Invalid Because of Fraud, Error, Misrepresentation or Defects of Form?

Text: FRAUD, ERROR, OR MISREPRESENTATION. There is no evidence of fraud. Plaintiffs argue that they intended to sign wills rather than donations. However, this claim is supported only by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Tweedel [5] and to a small extent by Mrs. Elliot. The Tweedels knew the documents were intended to be executed on three occasions in three different years. Elliot, an impartial witness, was told by the Tweedels that they were giving or deeding land over a period of time to avoid inheritance taxes. The Tweedels told the notary they understood what they were signing, but, most important, is the language of the instruments themselves. The acts are clearly titled Donation Inter Vivos from George Thomas Tweedel & Lillian Fontenot Tweedel to Hester Tweedel Brasseaux, et als; they state that the Tweedels own property in St. Landry and Acadia Parishes; that they are making donations to their relatives and that they reserve the right to use and usufruct of the property during the term of their natural life. [6] The acts also say in paragraph six that the amount donated constitutes only a small portion of the Tweedels' estate and that they have reserved amply for their subsistence. [7] (Tr. 55) [S]ignatures to obligations are not mere ornaments. Boullt v. Sarpy, 30 La.Ann. 494 at 495. Additionally, the courts of our state have long held that [i]f a party can read, it behooves him to examine an instrument before signing it; and if he cannot read, it behooves him to have the instrument read to him and listen attentatively whilst this is being done. Snell v. Union Sawmill Company, 159 La. 604 at 608, 105 So. 728 at 730 (1925). Bagneris v. Oddo, 2 Pelt. 278 (La.App.1919) held: The presumption is that parties are aware of the contents of writings to which they have affixed their signatures... The burden of proof is upon them to establish with reasonable certainty that they have been deceived. 2 Pelt. at 285. Therefore, the Tweedels have not established that they erred by not understanding or intending the donations. The conclusions to the contrary by the trial court and the court of appeal are clearly wrong. The trial court and the court of appeal also concluded that the Brasseauxs did not intend to accept the donations. It is true that the Brasseauxs did not understand the nuances of the transaction, but the acts contain clear acceptances. The Brasseauxs' testimony indicates that they knew the papers were donations and not wills with the Tweedels to continue enjoying use of the property until their deaths. As to misrepresentation, there is no testimony that the Brasseauxs or anyone else told the Tweedels that the instruments were wills. On the contrary, the evidence, especially the unbiased testimony of attorney Boudreaux and Larry Elliot, is to the effect that the Tweedels were told what they signed, that is, a gift of the land with a reservation of a lifetime usufruct. [8] DEFECTS OF FORM Various charges against the acts of donation will be considered as enumerated in the amended petition: (1) Some or all are not authentic acts and/or do not meet the requisites of the Civil Code. There is no question that the acts involved in this suit are donations inter vivos under the terms of LSA-C.C. art. 1536, as follows: An act shall be passed before a notary public and two witnesses of every donation inter vivos of immovable property or incorporeal things, such as rents, credits, rights or actions, under the penalty of nullity. George T. Tweedel and his wife, Lillian, signed the instruments before two witnesses and a notary public as required by the article. The documents constitute authentic acts. [9] (2) Some or all were incorrectly dated and/or were not dated on the date of execution. The fact that the Tweedels signed the 1978 set of instruments about three days before their stated date has no significance. [10] Signing the instruments three days early was at the request of the donors, according to all of the relevant testimony, and they cannot now complain of that fact. (3) Some or all were accepted prior to the actual donation. This matter will be dealt with below. (4) The instruments were not read by or to the donors, witnesses and/or notary. First, there is no legal requirement that the notary read the instruments; certainly there is no requirement that the witnesses read the instrument. Here the notary asked the donors if they understood what they were signing and they replied in the affirmative. The law of Louisiana is that one who signs an instrument without reading it has no complaint. As this court wrote long ago: ... She now asserts that she is not bound by this instrument, because she did not read it, and signed it in ignorance of its purport. We have only to say that the law does not compel people to read or to inform themselves of the contents of instruments which they may choose to sign, but that, save in certain exceptional cases, it holds them to the consequences, in the same manner and to the same extent as though they had exercised those rights,... Ray v. McLain, 106 La. 780 at 790, 31 So. 315 at 319 (1901). The circumstances indicate that the reason the Tweedels did not read the instruments is that they were well familiar with the contents as a result of the telephone conversation between the lawyer in Opelousas and Mr. Tweedel. It is significant that Mrs. Tweedel, who testified that she keeps the family business files, had a copy of the instrument in her possession from December, 1977 until the lawsuit was tried. (5) Some or all were not signed by the parties, witnesses, and/or notary in the presence of each other. There is no evidence to support this contention. (6) Some or all were not signed by the notary on the same date the donors and/or witnesses signed. There is no evidence to support this contention.