City Bank and Trust v. Scott
575 So. 2d 872, 1991 WL 25820 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a contract to sell immovable property to be enforceable, the written document must contain a description of the property with 'sufficient body' to distinguish it from other properties. Parol evidence is inadmissible to wholly identify property described in such general terms that the title would rest essentially on oral testimony rather than the writing.
Facts:
- City Bank and Trust of Shreveport (the bank) held an auction for various properties.
- An auction brochure advertised one of the properties as 'Property # 137—Gilliam, Louisiana—Vacant Land 21 acres—call for directions.'
- Willard Scott, Jr. was the successful bidder for this property at the auction.
- The bank and Scott entered into a written 'Real Estate Purchase Contract' for the property.
- The contract described the property only as 'Auction Property # 137' and 'Vacant Land 21 Acres' located in Gilliam, Louisiana, with no further legal description, address, or identifying details.
Procedural Posture:
- City Bank and Trust of Shreveport sued Willard Scott, Jr. in a Louisiana trial court, seeking specific performance of a real estate purchase contract.
- The trial court entered a judgment rejecting the bank's demands, ruling in favor of Scott.
- City Bank and Trust of Shreveport, as plaintiff-appellant, 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 written description of real property as 'Auction Property # 137' and 'Vacant Land 21 Acres' in a specific town sufficient to permit the introduction of parol evidence to identify the specific parcel of land and enforce a contract for its sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Marvin
No. A written description of real property as 'Vacant Land 21 Acres' is too general to serve as a basis for admitting parol evidence to identify the property. Louisiana law requires that contracts for the sale of immovable property be in writing. While parol evidence may be used to clarify an ambiguous description, it cannot be used to wholly identify the property when the initial written description lacks 'sufficient body.' The written description must be specific enough to distinguish the property from others, ensuring that title rests substantially on the writing itself, not on extrinsic evidence. Here, 'vacant land, 21 acres, Gilliam, Louisiana' could refer to any number of parcels and is therefore an insufficient base upon which to build a title with parol evidence, rendering the contract unenforceable.
Analysis:
This case reinforces Louisiana's strict application of the writing requirement for contracts involving immovable property. It clarifies that a generic description of acreage and a town name does not meet the 'sufficient body' test required to permit the use of parol evidence. The decision serves as a strong caution to parties drafting real estate contracts to use precise legal descriptions or other unique identifiers. By refusing to enforce the contract, the court prioritizes the statutory goal of preventing fraud over the potential hardship to a party who relied on a poorly drafted agreement.
