Court Opinion

ID: 9859096
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 18:41:38.309373+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:06:11.713599
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
This matter is before the court on a Motion for Rehearing filed by the plaintiff herein, First Acadiana Bank [Bank]. The bank seeks reconsideration of this court’s determination that the mortgage of defendant St. Landry Homestead Association [SLHA] has priority over that of the Bank. In order to rule on this motion, it will be necessary to briefly state the facts leading to this court’s original conclusion.
Both the Bank and SLHA had mortgages on the same real property belonging to the above-referenced debtors. Although the Bank’s mortgage was recorded earlier in time, the mortgage was given in the name of “Herman J. Guillory”, not “Herman B. Guillory”, which was the name in which the property in question was titled. SLHA’s mortgage was in the name of “Herman B.”, and was properly recorded, although at a later time. Significantly, when SLHA ran a mortgage certificate in the name of Herman B. Guillory, the Bank’s mortgage did not appear on the parish records.
This court found that the case of First Financial Bank v. Johnson, 477 So.2d 1267 (4th Cir.1985) was controlling in this situation. The Johnson case held that to be effective as against third parties, a mortgage must be recorded in the name of the record owner of the property. Although this court disagrees with that decision for reasons set out in its Reasons for Judgment dated April 24, 1986, the Johnson case represents the latest expression of authority by a Louisiana appellate court, and as such, is binding on the bankruptcy court. This court therefore found in favor of SLHA.
The Bank’s Motion for Rehearing asserts that this court, in its earlier decision, failed to take into consideration that, unlike the Johnson case, here there are two record owners of the property concerned, Herman Guillory, and Bessie Berzas Guillory. This court granted the motion to reconsider in order to address that issue.
SLHA asserts that “Bessie Berzas Guil-lory” is not a record owner of the property in question, because she is not listed as such in the Act of Sale by which the property in question was purchased. The Bank argues that Article 2398 of the Louisiana Civil Code, which provides that each spouse owns a present undivided one-half share in the couple’s community property, creates such record ownership in Mrs. Guillory in this case. This court, however, finds it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on that issue. Even assuming that “Bessie Berzas Guillory” was a record owner of the real estate in question, the Bank’s mortgage is in the name of Herman J. Guillory only. The mortgage reads as follows:
HERMAN J. GUILLORY
induvidually [sic], married to and living' with Bessie Berzas Guillory, residents of St. Landry Parish, Louisiana, whose mailing address is declared to be P.O. Box 144, Eunice, Louisiana 70535, and d/b/a EUNICE FENCE COMPANY,
The primary issue here is whether SLHA could, or should, have had notice of the Bank’s prior mortgage. Under the Johnson case, as a matter of law, recording the mortgage in the name of Herman J. Guillo-ry, when the name of the record owner was different, was ineffective to give notice of the prior mortgage to SLHA. Nor would a search in the name of Bessie Berzas Guillo-ry have revealed the bank’s mortgage, because the mortgage is in the name of Herman B. Guillory alone. Although this court recognizes that the mortgage indices are not conclusive, it is worthy of note that in those indices, copies of which were entered in the record herein, the Bank’s mortgage does not appear under the name of Bessie Berzas Guillory, while the SLHA mortgage is reflected in those records.
The court, therefore, finds that, assuming Bessie Berzas Guillory to be a record owner of the real property at issue here, because the mortgage to the Bank is in the name of Herman J. Guillory only, SLHA *11did not have notice of the Bank’s mortgage. The Bank’s mortgage is thus primed. A judgment consistent with this opinion will be signed upon submission.