Landry v. LeBlanc
416 So. 2d 247 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement to transfer ownership of immovable property, which includes topsoil, must be in writing. Parol evidence is inadmissible to prove verbal authorization for such a transfer or to establish an agent's mandate to dispose of immovable property.
Facts:
- In 1976, Adelaide L. Landry and Adley LeBlanc entered into a verbal farm lease for an 8.5-acre property.
- The parties verbally renewed the lease for the years 1977 and 1978.
- On or about April 1, 1978, LeBlanc arranged for a third party, R. J. Thibodeaux Shell Yard, Inc., to remove the topsoil from a portion of the leased property.
- LeBlanc claimed that he had received verbal permission to remove the soil from Lucien Landry, Adelaide Landry's brother.
- Adelaide Landry denied that she or anyone on her behalf had authorized the removal of the soil.
- After the soil was removed, Landry notified LeBlanc that the lease would not be renewed and demanded that he return the property to its original condition.
Procedural Posture:
- Adelaide L. Landry sued Adley LeBlanc in a Louisiana trial court for breach of contract and damages.
- LeBlanc filed an exception of prescription, which the trial court overruled.
- At trial, over Landry's objection, the court admitted parol evidence from LeBlanc regarding alleged verbal permission to remove the soil.
- The trial court found that Landry had failed to meet her burden of proof and rendered judgment in favor of LeBlanc, dismissing Landry's claims.
- Landry, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third 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:
Does the parol evidence rule bar the admission of testimony concerning an alleged verbal authorization for a lessee to remove topsoil from leased property, where topsoil is classified as immovable property?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Doucet
Yes. The parol evidence rule bars admission of such testimony because any transfer of immovable property, including topsoil, and an agent's authority to conduct such a transfer, must be in writing. The court reasoned that under Louisiana law, topsoil is classified as an immovable property, just like the land itself. Any contract to transfer ownership of immovable property must be in writing to be valid. Furthermore, a mandate of agency authorizing someone to dispose of immovable property must also be express, special, and in writing. Because LeBlanc's defense rested on an alleged verbal authorization from Landry's brother to remove the topsoil, this constituted an attempt to prove a transfer of immovable property and an agent's mandate via parol evidence, which is inadmissible. The trial court therefore erred in admitting testimony about this verbal permission. Without this inadmissible evidence, LeBlanc had no proof of authorization and was liable for breaching the lease.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the strict formal requirements for transactions involving immovable property under Louisiana's civil law system. By classifying topsoil as an immovable, the court ensures that component parts of land receive the same legal protection as the land itself, requiring written agreements for their transfer. The case serves as a clear precedent that parol evidence is strictly barred not only for proving the transfer of immovable property but also for establishing an agent's authority to do so. This strengthens protections for landowners against unauthorized alienation of their property based on disputed verbal claims, thereby promoting certainty in real estate transactions.
Unlock the full brief for Landry v. LeBlanc