Lemoine v. Lacour

Supreme Court of Louisiana
34 So. 2d 392, 213 La. 109 (1948)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under Louisiana law, a contract for the sale of immovable property must be in writing and contain a sufficient description of the property to be enforceable. A receipt for "payment on place" is insufficient, but a plaintiff alleging a verbal sale must be given an opportunity to amend their petition to interrogate the defendant under oath to confess the sale, which is an exception to the writing requirement.

Facts:

In July 1944, Clifton Lemoine and W. L. and C. P. Lacour entered into a verbal agreement for Lemoine to purchase a one-acre parcel of land with improvements from the Lacours.
The agreed-upon purchase price was $350, payable in ten monthly installments of $35 each.
Lemoine made nine of the ten monthly payments to the Lacours.
For each payment, the Lacours provided a receipt stating, "Received from Mr. Clifton Lemoine $35.00 for payment on place."
Immediately after the agreement, Lemoine moved onto the property and lived there continuously.
When Lemoine attempted to make the tenth and final payment, the Lacours refused to accept it.
The Lacours subsequently refused to execute a formal deed conveying the property to Lemoine.

Procedural Posture:

Clifton Lemoine (plaintiff) sued W. L. and C. P. Lacour (defendants) in a Louisiana district court (trial court), seeking specific performance of a real estate contract.
Defendants filed an exception of no cause of action, arguing the petition was based on an unenforceable verbal agreement.
The district court sustained the exception and dismissed the demand for specific performance.
Lemoine (appellant) appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's judgment.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of certiorari on Lemoine's (petitioner's) application to review the decision.

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 a series of receipts for "payment on place," which lack any description of the property, constitute a sufficient writing to support a demand for specific performance for the sale of immovable property?

Opinions:

Majority - Hamiter, J.

No, a series of receipts for "payment on place" that completely lacks a property description is not a sufficient writing to enforce the sale of immovable property. Louisiana Civil Code Article 2440 requires all sales of immovable property to be in writing. While parol evidence can be used to clarify an ambiguous description, it cannot be used when there is no description at all, as the title would then rest essentially on parol evidence, not the writing. The receipts here fail this standard. However, under Civil Code Article 2275, a verbal sale can be enforced if the vendor confesses it under oath and delivery has been made. Because Lemoine alleged delivery (possession) and should be given the chance to prove the verbal sale through the Lacours' sworn testimony, the case should be remanded to allow him to amend his pleadings to interrogate the defendants.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the strict requirement of a written contract for the sale of immovable property in Louisiana, emphasizing that the writing must contain a substantive description of the property. However, the case's primary significance lies in its procedural holding, which champions Louisiana's modern, liberal approach to pleading. By allowing the plaintiff to amend his suit to invoke the statutory exception for confessed verbal sales, the court prevents a dismissal on technical grounds and prioritizes justice over rigid procedural rules, ensuring a party can pursue a valid claim if a path exists under the law.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Lemoine v. Lacour (1948)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"