Arledge v. Bell
463 So. 2d 856 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The oral remission of a debt is not subject to the formal writing requirements prescribed for donations. A deceased creditor's oral statement forgiving a debt is admissible as a declaration against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule.
Facts:
- Joseph Alton Arledge was the uncle of Arlen C. Bell.
- In 1980, Arledge lent his nephew, Bell, $10,000 to be used as a down payment on a home.
- Bell subsequently made ten payments of $100 each on the loan, reducing the unpaid balance to $9,000.
- At some point after the loan was made and before Arledge's death, Bell and Arledge had a long-distance telephone conversation.
- Joseph Alton Arledge died intestate on November 17, 1982.
Procedural Posture:
- Alvin J. Arledge, as administrator of the succession of Joseph Alton Arledge, filed a suit for declaratory judgment against Arlen C. Bell in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The trial court found in favor of the succession, holding that Bell was indebted to the estate for $9,000.
- During the trial, the court sustained the succession's objection and excluded Bell's testimony regarding the substance of a phone call with the decedent, ruling it was irrelevant and hearsay.
- Arlen C. Bell, as the defendant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a debtor's testimony about a deceased creditor's oral statement forgiving a debt admissible to prove remission, or is such testimony barred as irrelevant because remission is a form of donation requiring a written instrument and as inadmissible hearsay?
Opinions:
Majority - Sexton, J.
No, such testimony is not barred. The forgiveness of a debt (remission) is not a donation subject to formal writing requirements, and a deceased's statement forgiving a debt is an admissible exception to the hearsay rule. The court reasoned that while remission involves gratuitous intent, it is legally distinct from a donation and governs an existing obligation, thus not requiring the authentic form stipulated in LSA-C.C. Art. 1536. Therefore, oral evidence seeking to prove remission is relevant. Furthermore, the decedent's statement forgiving the debt is a declaration against his pecuniary interest, as he was surrendering a claim to $9,000. This places the statement squarely within an established exception to the hearsay rule. While such testimony must be scrutinized with great care due to its potential for fabrication, this concern affects the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility. The court also found that evidence of the decedent's general generosity toward family members was relevant to establish a course of dealing and should have been admitted. Because the trial court erred in excluding this crucial evidence, and because the defendant's credibility is central to the case, a new trial is warranted.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the important distinction in Louisiana civil law between remission of a debt and a donation. It establishes that the stringent formal requirements for a valid donation, such as a written act, do not apply when a creditor forgives an existing debt. This precedent allows debtors to prove oral remission, even after the creditor's death, by reinforcing the application of the 'declaration against interest' hearsay exception in succession disputes. The decision provides a pathway for such claims but also cautions that they face a high credibility burden, emphasizing that the trier of fact must carefully weigh the testimony.
